Regardless of what happens in September, the 2015 election has to include Scottish seats. The Scottish people can't be disenfranchised prior to any separation.
No, it doesn't.
They need to be represented, but not to legislate on rUK laws. (I suspect that any rUK laws impacting Scotland at that point - although I struggle to imagine any - will be a matter of discussion between heads of government).
Representation should be addressed through the FM appointing representatives, in proportion to the Holyrood Parliament. (That will also reduce the incentive of Labour placemen to do the bidding of Ed Miliband because their future will be as part of a different national party at that point)
Another one that loves democracy. You will want to keep our money no doubt. Huzzah for Tories and fair play. Whats mine is mine and whats yours is mine, the Tory motto.
Mr. G, the currency is not an asset. An individual pound is, as is an individual pound's worth of debt. The currency as a system is not.
You cannot seriously believe it is legitimate for an independent Scotland to demand that the English, Welsh and Northern Irish act as lender of last resort for Scottish financial institutions.
I am not a radical Englander. I support the union.
Question is what huge give will UK have to provide to keep Trident at Faslane for more than a few months.
You do want to join the EU, don't you?
Personally I don't care but I am sure England would not get away with any veto as the consequences would be catastrophic for them, nobody likes vindictive bad losers. Shooting themselves in the foot out of petty spite would be extremely stupid. I want independence.
Spain, France, Italy would be the most implacable vetoes. They have their own secessionist problems.
The IEA Brexit prize winner recommended membership of EFTA.
Not so sure Dave , Spanish especially would be big losers, their fishing fleet would be heading home immediately , and the amount of EU nationals getting chucked out of Uni's etc would be a big issue. The politicians will sort it out quickly , they will be loth to exclude people who have been EU citizens for 40 years whilst they will take in any basket case normally. It just will not happen , and if it does , who gives a shit.
I don't understand why the SNP are so keen to join the EU. Why should spanish fishermen get the money rather than scottish fishermen? Follow iceland.
I think HMG would probably support a scottish application to the EU. For opponents, look at the domestic opponents of your European allies.
The overall effect of Scottish independence is to balance up the boundary change cock-up over Lords Reform but it would be wrong to think this will be the end of the devolution process as Wales will demand the same,leaving only the Northern Irish unionists desperately clinging on to nanny England.People at the opposite sides of England from the North East to the South West will be increasingly excluded and will be asking for more powers to their regions. All that Westminster will be left with is London and the South East,their main interest anyway.
Now it is among the smallest in the world, probably only Switzerland are likely to build less ships. Shipbuilding is finished under the union , it cannot get worse under independence. Those 2000 jobs will be gone in the short term if we stay in the union , in the event of independence there is a chance they will diversify and between building Scottish ships and the diversification something may survive.
"It cannot get worse under independence. "
Yes it could; it could disappear. At least within the union you have an excellent chance of getting any new military ship builds, as happened a few months ago.
As for diversification - what would you diversify into? Do you have any idea, or are you just grasping at straws?
Well for a start we could build some of the ships used in oil industry that Norway currently build with their much larger shipbuilding industry. We could build military ships for future Scottish Navy. What makes you think we need to sit waiting on crumbs from your table, 5 or 6 Type 26 frigates will not keep the yards going for long and will not sustain anywhere near the current minimum amount of jobs. Portsmouth even with the latest cuts has 12,000 jobs left and that is just one yard in England, we see where our money is spent.
"we could build some of the ships used in oil industry that Norway currently build with their much larger shipbuilding industry."
You would have to compete with Norway, which already has the yards, skills, knowledge and track record in that work. You could invest, but would it be the best use of that money?
"We could build military ships for future Scottish Navy. "
Which would be equivalent to the Irish navy: nothing large enough to keep your yards busy.
All in all: good luck in getting anything anywhere near as large-scale. One of the problems is that even the Upper Clyde shipyards are space limited to build the really big ships that are most in demand. Ferries are ideal work, but they are relatively small, limited in number, and competitive.
I see you are envious of the 12,000 jobs in Portsmouth. Are you sure that figure's even correct? According to Wiki, BAE Systems Maritime – Naval Ships only employs 7,000 people in total. And proportionally far more jobs went in English yards than Scottish ones.
Besides, is Scotland the only part of the union allowed to have any industry? Do you begrudge every pound spent on non-Scottish industry? Are you really that spiteful?
The overall effect of Scottish independence is to balance up the boundary change cock-up over Lords Reform but it would be wrong to think this will be the end of the devolution process as Wales will demand the same,leaving only the Northern Irish unionists desperately clinging on to nanny England.People at the opposite sides of England from the North East to the South West will be increasingly excluded and will be asking for more powers to their regions. All that Westminster will be left with is London and the South East,their main interest anyway.
What evidence do you have for that? Plaid Cymru are polling behind Conservatives, Labour and UKIP for the EU Parliament elections in Wales.
The first line in the Queens speech would be to remove Scottish MPs rights to vote on issues relating to present or future UK business. 59 MPs may remain until independence, but they would be as useful as chocolate teapots.
Regardless of what happens in September, the 2015 election has to include Scottish seats. The Scottish people can't be disenfranchised prior to any separation.
The usual defence of Scots MPs for voting on English matters is "Barnett consequentials" - so abolish Barnett, freeze Scots spending, and that goes away.....
That would be a great negotiating tactic. Followed by 24 hours to take your nuclear junk wherever you were going to park it in future would sort that one out.
Carlotta's just being silly.
I'd expect that the first order of business would be to agree a fixed funding package until independence and then delink Scottish spending from any rUK spending bills (it makes no sense to have Barnett because rUK MPs shouldn't be influencing the Scottish budget).
King Cole, I don't think that's a fair assessment.
If Yes wins the country separates into two. Scots cannot expect special treatment in such a circumstance, as it would be detrimental to Britain. They have no right to demand a currency union with a country they just voted to leave, and the British people (and politicians) have made it plain they have no plans to offer it.
Yes believe this is a negotiating position, but if the UK politicians renege on it the British will be pretty furious. If they don't, the Scots may consider it bullying (although that's a deranged position to hold).
I think you are wrong here.
The English will be p1ssed if they think the overall package is a soft touch. But they won't really care about specific details.
I'm fine with a currency union - provided, of course, that there are appropriate controls over Scottish fiscal and monetary policy, and a substantial payment for underwriting the banking sector as a LoLR. But I can't see why the Scots would want that for any more than a transitional period.
Let's face it, every divorce starts out with "We'll stay friends for the sake of the kids. We'll sort it out amicably, no reason to be at each other's throat". Within a week she's told your parents you're a cross dresser, and you've posted naked photos of her on to FaceBook. It's not going to be easy, this Independence malarky, but that's no reason why it shouldn't go ahead. Once the Scots vote Yes, I want my government to get the best deal they can, bugger the Scots, and I fully expect the Scottish government to want the same for their own people.
But after saying 'No' very clearly and the public being 2:1 against there will almost certainly be a political price to pay. Could be helpful for UKIP.
The overall effect of Scottish independence is to balance up the boundary change cock-up over Lords Reform but it would be wrong to think this will be the end of the devolution process as Wales will demand the same,leaving only the Northern Irish unionists desperately clinging on to nanny England.People at the opposite sides of England from the North East to the South West will be increasingly excluded and will be asking for more powers to their regions. All that Westminster will be left with is London and the South East,their main interest anyway.
Wales is running away from any form of independence as fast as they can, as they know that they will have to raise taxes significantly to support their current public sector.
Wales has a deficient infrastructure - road, rail and IT as well as health and education and they are trying to get Westminster to pay for much of it. However, as certain matters are already devolved, then Westminster has very much a deaf ear.
Without that infrastructure in place, then jobs and investment will not come easily to Wales.
Whatever happened to long-term much respected poster and sometime thread writer (not to mention great tennis tipster) Henry G Manson ?
He doesn't seem to have been around for some while. With the GE now on the horizon his considerable knowledge of Labour Party workings would be greatly appreciated.
Now it is among the smallest in the world, probably only Switzerland are likely to build less ships. Shipbuilding is finished under the union , it cannot get worse under independence. Those 2000 jobs will be gone in the short term if we stay in the union , in the event of independence there is a chance they will diversify and between building Scottish ships and the diversification something may survive.
/dp/0752489690
England, we see where our money is spent.
"we could build some of the ships used in oil industry that Norway currently build with their much larger shipbuilding industry."
You would have to compete with Norway, which already has the yards, skills, knowledge and track record in that work. You could invest, but would it be the best use of that money?
"We could build military ships for future Scottish Navy. "
Which would be equivalent to the Irish navy: nothing large enough to keep your yards busy.
All in all: good luck in getting anything anywhere near as large-scale. One of the problems is that even the Upper Clyde shipyards are space limited to build the really big ships that are most in demand. Ferries are ideal work, but they are relatively small, limited in number, and competitive.
I see you are envious of the 12,000 jobs in Portsmouth. Are you sure that figure's even correct? According to Wiki, BAE Systems Maritime – Naval Ships only employs 7,000 people in total. And proportionally far more jobs went in English yards than Scottish ones.
Besides, is Scotland the only part of the union allowed to have any industry? Do you begrudge every pound spent on non-Scottish industry? Are you really that spiteful?
JJ as ever , you were the one boasting about the great benefits on shipbuilding we were getting from the union , ignoring the minimalist and shrinking number of jobs available. As ever you do not like it when your biased views are shown to be rubbish , hence my mentioning one yard in England for repair only had 12000 jobs and the amount of shrieking about us keeping a handful of jobs. If you are determined to be a whinging Little Englander at least try to get some of your facts right.
I can't find a Scotsman.com article giving the EU numbers though.
"Although at 10%, UKIP support is far lower in Scotland than elsewhere in Britain, that is still enough to put the party just a point behind the Conservatives – and consequently just a point away from winning a seat. "
I do remember Mr. Manson's tennis tips fondly, and his very useful advice (relying mostly but not entirely on past head-to-head performance). A very sound chap, Mr. Manson.
'ICM poll Scottish Euro election intentions. SNP 37% 3 seats, Lab 28% 2 seats, Con 11% 1 seat, UKIP 10% 0 seats, Lib Dem 7% 0 seats, Green 4%'
Perhaps Monica can be tempted to have a bet on UKIP having their first Scottish electoral success?
With UKIP doing better than Lib Dems in Scotland, Lib Dems are going to have to change the way they present their EU policy.
Lib Dem EU policies are actually localism, subsidiarity (of the EU), and reform of the EU. But instead the EU fanatics have chosen to present Lib Dem policy as an unconditional IN. The public may be in favour of being in the EU but not unconditionally.
As you purport to be the infallible expert of Scottish Independence, please will you point me to one document (not more than one year old) that sets out the economic policy for Scotland post independence with all the income, expenditure and taxation policies (Including employment details) and sets out all the assumptions made to achieve those policies and includes Scotland's balance sheet.
The first line in the Queens speech would be to remove Scottish MPs rights to vote on issues relating to present or future UK business. 59 MPs may remain until independence, but they would be as useful as chocolate teapots.
Regardless of what happens in September, the 2015 election has to include Scottish seats. The Scottish people can't be disenfranchised prior to any separation.
The usual defence of Scots MPs for voting on English matters is "Barnett consequentials" - so abolish Barnett, freeze Scots spending, and that goes away.....
That would be a great negotiating tactic. Followed by 24 hours to take your nuclear junk wherever you were going to park it in future would sort that one out.
Carlotta's just being silly.
I'd expect that the first order of business would be to agree a fixed funding package until independence and then delink Scottish spending from any rUK spending bills (it makes no sense to have Barnett because rUK MPs shouldn't be influencing the Scottish budget).
Exactly, everybody would act as the friends they are and put in place a sensible interim solution. I believe Carlotta was just following the BT mantra of permanent doom for Scotland.
The first line in the Queens speech would be to remove Scottish MPs rights to vote on issues relating to present or future UK business. 59 MPs may remain until independence, but they would be as useful as chocolate teapots.
Regardless of what happens in September, the 2015 election has to include Scottish seats. The Scottish people can't be disenfranchised prior to any separation.
The usual defence of Scots MPs for voting on English matters is "Barnett consequentials" - so abolish Barnett, freeze Scots spending, and that goes away.....
That would be a great negotiating tactic. Followed by 24 hours to take your nuclear junk wherever you were going to park it in future would sort that one out.
Carlotta's just being silly.
I'd expect that the first order of business would be to agree a fixed funding package until independence and then delink Scottish spending from any rUK spending bills (it makes no sense to have Barnett because rUK MPs shouldn't be influencing the Scottish budget).
If I am then so are you! In essence that was what I was suggesting! You have to remove any potential appearance of either side having divided loyalty in the negotiations. You can't have Scottish MPs negotiating on rUK's behalf.....
But after saying 'No' very clearly and the public being 2:1 against there will almost certainly be a political price to pay. Could be helpful for UKIP.
MD it is very hard to believe that you can be so naive regarding politicians.
I can't find a Scotsman.com article giving the EU numbers though.
"Although at 10%, UKIP support is far lower in Scotland than elsewhere in Britain, that is still enough to put the party just a point behind the Conservatives – and consequently just a point away from winning a seat. "
JJ as ever , you were the one boasting about the great benefits on shipbuilding we were getting from the union , ignoring the minimalist and shrinking number of jobs available. As ever you do not like it when your biased views are shown to be rubbish , hence my mentioning one yard in England for repair only had 12000 jobs and the amount of shrieking about us keeping a handful of jobs. If you are determined to be a whinging Little Englander at least try to get some of your facts right.
You have given no evidence to show that my views are rubbish. In fact, your posts on this topic are rather lacking in facts, and especially links to prove your facts. For instance, BAE only employed 1,200 in shipbuilding in Portsmouth before the closure announcement, with 3,200 in the two Clyde yards.
If you remember, I supported the (sad) closure of Portsmouth in favour of the Clydeside yards, because that deal made sense. This is despite having got married within Portsmouth naval base. That is hardly the attitude of a 'Little Englander'.
It is particularly silly calling me a 'Little Englander' when I talk about my love for your good country so much.
Also, I look forward to you telling the shipworkers on the Clyde that there are just a 'handful' of jobs there.
'ICM poll Scottish Euro election intentions. SNP 37% 3 seats, Lab 28% 2 seats, Con 11% 1 seat, UKIP 10% 0 seats, Lib Dem 7% 0 seats, Green 4%'
Perhaps Monica can be tempted to have a bet on UKIP having their first Scottish electoral success?
With UKIP doing better than Lib Dems in Scotland, Lib Dems are going to have to change the way they present their EU policy.
Lib Dem EU policies are actually localism, subsidiarity (of the EU), and reform of the EU. But instead the EU fanatics have chosen to present Lib Dem policy as an unconditional IN. The public may be in favour of being in the EU but not unconditionally.
The LDs will have the opportunity to vote on that on July 22nd. HMG is hoping to pass Justice and Home Affairs power to the EU.
I do remember Mr. Manson's tennis tips fondly, and his very useful advice (relying mostly but not entirely on past head-to-head performance). A very sound chap, Mr. Manson.
Agree - fascinating insight into Labour. Not so reliable when he got on to the Tories.
But after saying 'No' very clearly and the public being 2:1 against there will almost certainly be a political price to pay. Could be helpful for UKIP.
MD it is very hard to believe that you can be so naive regarding politicians.
That is what we fear you are being with regards to Salmond.....
I can't find a Scotsman.com article giving the EU numbers though.
"Although at 10%, UKIP support is far lower in Scotland than elsewhere in Britain, that is still enough to put the party just a point behind the Conservatives – and consequently just a point away from winning a seat. "
As you purport to be the infallible expert of Scottish Independence, please will you point me to one document (not more than one year old) that sets out the economic policy for Scotland post independence with all the income, expenditure and taxation policies (Including employment details) and sets out all the assumptions made to achieve those policies and includes Scotland's balance sheet.
Thank you.
Given we do not have the full revenue numbers for Scotland that is impossible. We have a s much as the Scottish Government can glean from the partial data Westminster will admit to but as you would know if you were any expert at all , after independence all will change as many companies that report their revenue in England will in future have to report it in Scotland also in future so any joint data currently available will change. Given the UK government cannot tell us what is happening from week to week I wonder why you would expect some miracle future Scottish data to be available now. I think you will need the good Doctor or some other timelord to have that kind of data available. It further concerns me that given no negotiations have taken place etc that you could actually believe such data exists, so must conclude you are taking the piss or are indeed financially illiterate.
PS. I do not remember purporting to be an expert in anything never mind an infallible one, you do seem somewhat confused.
I can't find a Scotsman.com article giving the EU numbers though.
"Although at 10%, UKIP support is far lower in Scotland than elsewhere in Britain, that is still enough to put the party just a point behind the Conservatives – and consequently just a point away from winning a seat. "
JJ as ever , you were the one boasting about the great benefits on shipbuilding we were getting from the union , ignoring the minimalist and shrinking number of jobs available. As ever you do not like it when your biased views are shown to be rubbish , hence my mentioning one yard in England for repair only had 12000 jobs and the amount of shrieking about us keeping a handful of jobs. If you are determined to be a whinging Little Englander at least try to get some of your facts right.
You have given no evidence to show that my views are rubbish. In fact, your posts on this topic are rather lacking in facts, and especially links to prove your facts. For instance, BAE only employed 1,200 in shipbuilding in Portsmouth before the closure announcement, with 3,200 in the two Clyde yards.
If you remember, I supported the (sad) closure of Portsmouth in favour of the Clydeside yards, because that deal made sense. This is despite having got married within Portsmouth naval base. That is hardly the attitude of a 'Little Englander'.
It is particularly silly calling me a 'Little Englander' when I talk about my love for your good country so much.
Also, I look forward to you telling the shipworkers on the Clyde that there are just a 'handful' of jobs there.
JJ, you appear to live in a dream. You said proportionally the cuts in England were greater but it was approx 35% of the Glasgow workforce and even using your derisory figures it was 15% at Portsmouth. Fine unionist counting there, and that is one yard in England. They will shut the Clyde yards in near future if we are in the union and will still have circa 10K at Portsmouth.
I can't find a Scotsman.com article giving the EU numbers though.
"Although at 10%, UKIP support is far lower in Scotland than elsewhere in Britain, that is still enough to put the party just a point behind the Conservatives – and consequently just a point away from winning a seat. "
Most, if not all of us have a great deal of respect for the opinions of OGH even if from time to time threads seem not to suit us. Mike is on record as having said that following one of his regular trips to Edinburgh and realising just how different things are "up here", he would probably vote YES. I am sure many others, like me, are just tired of the whole IndyRef debate. We are business people who when presented with an issue, like to weigh up the options and take a decision and move on. This debate is like running a business by committee and we have seen how disastrous that has been for the Coop.
I am old enough to have clear memories of the launch of the QE2. My father took me to see it. On my recent visits to Glasgow I have seen the bits of the new Queen Elizabeth rising from the dry dock and also the frigates or whatever the recent naval ships built at Govan/Scotstoun were. Independence should hold no fears for shipyard workers. Even if rUK understandably withdraws future business from Glasgow or Rosyth and returns it to Plymouth/Portsmouth, the need for the skills of the Glasggow workforce would be in demand. They could go and work in England building UK ships and send their money home to Glasgow. Thousands of oil workers from around the north of Scotland have done this for 30-40 years when either Nigg/Ardersier were not working or they weren't working in the North Sea. They have gone to the Middle and Far East and Africa to work but send their money home to their families.
Easterross, carlotta lives in a fantasy world, having left Scotland she has to make out England is great and Scotland is crap and could not survive without the likes of her subsidising us , to justify herself. Stupid enough to think that a few jobs for the next 5 years is a big deal in the decision we are about to make and constantly whinging on about lender of last resort and RBS , etc. A Toom Tabard.
And yet only one of us feels the need to constantly insult the other.
Most, if not all of us have a great deal of respect for the opinions of OGH even if from time to time threads seem not to suit us. Mike is on record as having said that following one of his regular trips to Edinburgh and realising just how different things are "up here", he would probably vote YES. I am sure many others, like me, are just tired of the whole IndyRef debate. We are business people who when presented with an issue, like to weigh up the options and take a decision and move on. This debate is like running a business by committee and we have seen how disastrous that has been for the Coop.
I am old enough to have clear memories of the launch of the QE2. My father took me to see it. On my recent visits to Glasgow I have seen the bits of the new Queen Elizabeth rising from the dry dock and also the frigates or whatever the recent naval ships built at Govan/Scotstoun were. Independence should hold no fears for shipyard workers. Even if rUK understandably withdraws future business from Glasgow or Rosyth and returns it to Plymouth/Portsmouth, the need for the skills of the Glasggow workforce would be in demand. They could go and work in England building UK ships and send their money home to Glasgow. Thousands of oil workers from around the north of Scotland have done this for 30-40 years when either Nigg/Ardersier were not working or they weren't working in the North Sea. They have gone to the Middle and Far East and Africa to work but send their money home to their families.
Easterross, carlotta lives in a fantasy world, having left Scotland she has to make out England is great and Scotland is crap and could not survive without the likes of her subsidising us , to justify herself. Stupid enough to think that a few jobs for the next 5 years is a big deal in the decision we are about to make and constantly whinging on about lender of last resort and RBS , etc. A Toom Tabard.
And yet only one of us feels the need to constantly insult the other.
I wonder why that is?
Strange that you equate quoting facts as being insults. Bit insecure methinks.
I can't find a Scotsman.com article giving the EU numbers though.
"Although at 10%, UKIP support is far lower in Scotland than elsewhere in Britain, that is still enough to put the party just a point behind the Conservatives – and consequently just a point away from winning a seat. "
With that, the banning of the Russian language and the elevation to power of a party who organises marches to celebrate Waffen-SS slaughters of Russians, I have no idea why ethnic Russians are making such a fuss.
The Russian language was never banned. Where do you get this crap from? Russia Today?
It's ridiculous the number of outright lies the pro-Russian side has to rely on: eastern Ukraine wants to be part of Russia, the removal of a president by parliament was "violent coup", a constitutional supermajority vote was "illegal", the Russian language was banned... it's all just lies and smears.
I can't find a Scotsman.com article giving the EU numbers though.
"Although at 10%, UKIP support is far lower in Scotland than elsewhere in Britain, that is still enough to put the party just a point behind the Conservatives – and consequently just a point away from winning a seat. "
Maybe tactical votes by Tories could raise their vote. They have been shambolic so far in Scotland and last thing I would expect is us getting Tories in by the back door, but a good showing for them could stuff the Tories and it would be nice to see the Lib Dems slaughtered.
Most, if not all of us have a great deal of respect for the opinions of OGH even if from time to time threads seem not to suit us. Mike is on record as having said that following one of his regular trips to Edinburgh and realising just how different things are "up here", he would probably vote YES. I am sure many others, like me, are just tired of the whole IndyRef debate. We are business people who when presented with an issue, like to weigh up the options and take a decision and move on. This debate is like running a business by committee and we have seen how disastrous that has been for the Coop.
I am old enough to have clear memories of the launch of the QE2. My father took me to see it. On my recent visits to Glasgow I have seen the bits of the new Queen Elizabeth rising from the dry dock and also the frigates or whatever the recent naval ships built at Govan/Scotstoun were. Independence should hold no fears for shipyard workers. Even if rUK understandably withdraws future business from Glasgow or Rosyth and returns it to Plymouth/Portsmouth, the need for the skills of the Glasggow workforce would be in demand. They could go and work in England building UK ships and send their money home to Glasgow. Thousands of oil workers from around the north of Scotland have done this for 30-40 years when either Nigg/Ardersier were not working or they weren't working in the North Sea. They have gone to the Middle and Far East and Africa to work but send their money home to their families.
Easterross, carlotta lives in a fantasy world, having left Scotland she has to make out England is great and Scotland is crap and could not survive without the likes of her subsidising us , to justify herself. Stupid enough to think that a few jobs for the next 5 years is a big deal in the decision we are about to make and constantly whinging on about lender of last resort and RBS , etc. A Toom Tabard.
And yet only one of us feels the need to constantly insult the other.
I wonder why that is?
Strange that you equate quoting facts as being insults. Bit insecure methinks.
Do point me to ANY of your posts where you have quoted 'Facts'*
* The sayings of Chairman Eck do not count as 'facts'.....(EDIT - If Eck says 'the moon is made of green cheese' it may be a 'fact' that he said that, but it does not mean the moon is made of green cheese...)
As you purport to be the infallible expert of Scottish Independence, please will you point me to one document (not more than one year old) that sets out the economic policy for Scotland post independence with all the income, expenditure and taxation policies (Including employment details) and sets out all the assumptions made to achieve those policies and includes Scotland's balance sheet.
Thank you.
Given we do not have the full revenue numbers for Scotland that is impossible. We have a s much as the Scottish Government can glean from the partial data Westminster will admit to but as you would know if you were any expert at all , after independence all will change as many companies that report their revenue in England will in future have to report it in Scotland also in future so any joint data currently available will change. Given the UK government cannot tell us what is happening from week to week I wonder why you would expect some miracle future Scottish data to be available now. I think you will need the good Doctor or some other timelord to have that kind of data available. It further concerns me that given no negotiations have taken place etc that you could actually believe such data exists, so must conclude you are taking the piss or are indeed financially illiterate.
PS. I do not remember purporting to be an expert in anything never mind an infallible one, you do seem somewhat confused.
I ask a genuine question that should be asked by every person eligible to vote in the Referendum and you deny that such a document exists.
So, apart from nationalism, what is the economic base for Sottish Independence? You cannot be relying on Corporation tax to balance the books can you?
So Salmond, who worked as an economist for RBS, is basing his future economic policy on a finger in the wind. So if he does not like the numbers post-referendum, he will want to revert to devomax?
Most, if not all of us have a great deal of respect for the opinions of OGH even if from time to time threads seem not to suit us. Mike is on record as having said that following one of his regular trips to Edinburgh and realising just how different things are "up here", he would probably vote YES. I am sure many others, like me, are just tired of the whole IndyRef debate. We are business people who when presented with an issue, like to weigh up the options and take a decision and move on. This debate is like running a business by committee and we have seen how disastrous that has been for the Coop.
I am old enough to have clear memories of the launch of the QE2. My father took me to see it. On my recent visits to Glasgow I have seen the bits of the new Queen Elizabeth rising from the dry dock and also the frigates or whatever the recent naval ships built at Govan/Scotstoun were. Independence should hold no fears for shipyard workers. Even if rUK understandably withdraws future business from Glasgow or Rosyth and returns it to Plymouth/Portsmouth, the need for the skills of the Glasggow workforce would be in demand. They could go and work in England building UK ships and send their money home to Glasgow. Thousands of oil workers from around the north of Scotland have done this for 30-40 years when either Nigg/Ardersier were not working or they weren't working in the North Sea. They have gone to the Middle and Far East and Africa to work but send their money home to their families.
Easterross, carlotta lives in a fantasy world, having left Scotland she has to make out England is great and Scotland is crap and could not survive without the likes of her subsidising us , to justify herself. Stupid enough to think that a few jobs for the next 5 years is a big deal in the decision we are about to make and constantly whinging on about lender of last resort and RBS , etc. A Toom Tabard.
And yet only one of us feels the need to constantly insult the other.
I wonder why that is?
Strange that you equate quoting facts as being insults. Bit insecure methinks.
Do point me to ANY of your posts where you have quoted 'Facts'*
* The sayings of Chairman Eck do not count as 'facts'.....(EDIT - If Eck says 'the moon is made of green cheese' it may be a 'fact' that he said that, but it does not mean the moon is made of green cheese...)
Get up to Scotland and you will feel it immediately, the union is done and you will be choosing passports soon.
As normal it will be the countries where they do their business, ie as it was the US that bailed out British banks last time, and UK that bailed out Ireland , Iceland , etc.
Which British banks did the US bail out? I've seen this repeated a few times on here but never with any evidence to back up the statement...
@malcolmg continues to make this argument, but ignores the evidence I put up that it is bollocks.
RBS, like all foreign banks with substantial US operations, accessed the Fed discount window to provide incremental liquidity for their US operations. This was a short term loan, since fully repaid, and was available to all US market participants.
The US did not underwrite any of the parent company liabilities or take any equity in the company, and hence it was not a "bail out" in anything but malcom's fevered imagination
nice to see BT getting their act together today . From today’s Herald:
“Both sides of the independence debate will attempt to win over undecided voters this week with poster campaigns as senior Coalition sources admitted they have to have a more ‘explicitly’ positive pro-Union message.
The Tory-LibDem Government rejected accusations that its campaign is on the wrong track or scaremongering but a government source said: ‘We need to be more explicit about the fact that we are being positive in our message.
Most of what we say is very positive, but it is the negative parts that are currently attracting attention. We need to be more overt about how positive we are actually being.’”
Most, if not all of us have a great deal of respect for the opinions of OGH even if from time to time threads seem not to suit us. Mike is on record as having said that following one of his regular trips to Edinburgh and realising just how different things are "up here", he would probably vote YES. I am sure many others, like me, are just tired of the whole IndyRef debate. We are business people who when presented with an issue, like to weigh up the options and take a decision and move on. This debate is like running a business by committee and we have seen how disastrous that has been for the Coop.
I am old enough to have clear memories of the launch of the QE2. My father took me to see it. On my recent visits to Glasgow I have seen the bits of the new Queen Elizabeth rising from the dry dock and also the frigates or whatever the recent naval ships built at Govan/Scotstoun were. Independence should hold no fears for shipyard workers. Even if rUK understandably withdraws future business from Glasgow or Rosyth and returns it to Plymouth/Portsmouth, the need for the skills of the Glasggow workforce would be in demand. They could go and work in England building UK ships and send their money home to Glasgow. Thousands of oil workers from around the north of Scotland have done this for 30-40 years when either Nigg/Ardersier were not working or they weren't working in the North Sea. They have gone to the Middle and Far East and Africa to work but send their money home to their families.
Easterross, carlotta lives in a fantasy world, having left Scotland she has to make out England is great and Scotland is crap and could not survive without the likes of her subsidising us , to justify herself. Stupid enough to think that a few jobs for the next 5 years is a big deal in the decision we are about to make and constantly whinging on about lender of last resort and RBS , etc. A Toom Tabard.
And yet only one of us feels the need to constantly insult the other.
I wonder why that is?
Strange that you equate quoting facts as being insults. Bit insecure methinks.
Do point me to ANY of your posts where you have quoted 'Facts'*
* The sayings of Chairman Eck do not count as 'facts'.....(EDIT - If Eck says 'the moon is made of green cheese' it may be a 'fact' that he said that, but it does not mean the moon is made of green cheese...)
Get up to Scotland and you will feel it immediately, the union is done and you will be choosing passports soon.
I was in Scotland in September for a family funeral - the mood was very much 'no' then - but that's rural Angus for you......
What we don't really know is how public opinion in England will react.
A few straws in the wind.
We know that late last year opinion in rUK tended to be mildly in favour of a currency union. After the Tri-partite intervention it swung 2:1 against.
The Cardiff Univ study from 2012 showed English voters clearly think the Scots get the best deal out of the current set up. If the Scots have voted to leave it, I see no reason why the English should decide to continue that perceived munificence.
Add to that the grievances - real or perceived - published daily by the tabloids, and the sooner this gets resolved, the better for all concerned.
the small proportion whose jobs depend on having a predictable exchange rate with Scotland will be vote-changingly miffed if they think the English government has made life more difficult for them than it needs to be.
Many of them will already be working with multiple currencies, others may choose to continue to invoice in sterling. The bulk of the currency impact will be north of the border, where, as you observe, voters may well be miffed if their promised currency union does not come to pass, especially after they were clearly told it would not.
You just love to tell lies. The SNP only have said that if they are in power they would like to have a CU as their preferred option from a list of 5 or 6 possibilities. No-one has promised a currency union and most people do not care a jot whether there is one or not. Public preference initially is only to continue using the pound which is their currency. No CU is required for that to happen, try to keep up with reality, I know it is hard being a Tory.
So, for the umpteenth time of asking - who will be Lender of Last Resort for Scottish financial institutions?
As normal it will be the countries where they do their business, ie as it was the US that bailed out British banks last time, and UK that bailed out Ireland , Iceland , etc.
Accepting, for one moment, your bizarre assertion that the BoE acted as LoLR to Irish banks, who will act as LoLR to Scottish Banks?
The UK government bailed out Ulster bank via the RBS, and Bradford & Bingley (owned by AIB, I think). Malcolm clearly hasn't noticed that the UK and Dutch(?) governments are currently suing the Icelandii to get their money back...
I thought I better post just to give everyone a break from Malcolm.
I think the thread header is surprisingly counter-intuitive. I, for one, would have thought the minus 41 figure would have had a bigger effect.
[So, apart from nationalism, what is the economic base for Sottish Independence? You cannot be relying on Corporation tax to balance the books can you?]
As a unionist - I'd be basing it on whisky. I think the Yessers will be basing it on wind farms.
You ignore the point about Roman dioceses being abolished in the sixteenth century, and not being re-established until the nineteenth century, and then in a very different form. The superstitious orders were reintroduced into England, but long after they had been extinguished.
Roman dioceses? You mean English dioceses, don't you?
Superstitious orders? It appears you are simply a power worshipper who thinks all power and property should lie with the State i.e. something you control, to the detriment of minorities.
The bishop of Rome's jurisdiction in England was ended. It therefore fell to the Crown to administer church lands. Had you read some history, you would have discovered that monasteries had been dissolved before the break with Rome (e.g. by Wolsey to endow Cardinal Colleges, Ipswich & Oxford). The Crown dissolved monasteries in accordance with the same principle after 1536, albeit at a faster rate.
I agree that the church should be subject to the law as everybody else (hence the end of Benefit of Clergy), but it does not mean its property can be seized.
"It therefore fell to the Crown to administer church lands" is an interesting way of describing seizing land and buildings, stripping the lead off monastery roofs and flogging the lot to the highest bidder and pocketing the loot.
Orders are sometimes today thrown out of dioceses (for various reasons), but the bishop has no right to the property. As you yourself state, the proceeds were donated to found other charitable institutions, which included Oxford University, which was a Catholic institution at the time (not mentioned by you, Mr. Tudor Expert).
When you claim that '[t]he church is not above the law, but neither is it beneath it', you are making a contemporary political argument, not an historical one.
Silly me. I thought this a political site, as in politicalbetting.com.
The dissolution was, of course, carried out scrupulously in accordance with the law, the principle of parliamentary sovereignty having been established by the Act in restraint of appeals (1533), following the thesis of the 1531 New Additions to St Germain's Doctor & Student. The church was no more below the law than Anne Boleyn or Sir Thomas More.
They were murdered. Remind me what crimes they had committed?
And whatabout all the martyrs created by Henry VIII, which you decline to mention. All legal and above board according to you.
I ask a genuine question that should be asked by every person eligible to vote in the Referendum and you deny that such a document exists.
So, apart from nationalism, what is the economic base for Sottish Independence? You cannot be relying on Corporation tax to balance the books can you?
So Salmond, who worked as an economist for RBS, is basing his future economic policy on a finger in the wind. So if he does not like the numbers post-referendum, he will want to revert to devomax?
Financier , No government ever posts a line by line account of future finances. UK has plenty of fantasy forecasts that are always wrong. Scotland's GDP etc is well documented and even though it is not the real 100% number it shows Scotland is very viable and will be among the richest countries in the world, you would have read that or heard it from people such as David Cameron if you had been listening. If you are stupid enough to think that Salmond does not have plans in place and understands exactly where we are at present , then again you are stupid. No-one knows the future , but what is obvious is that it is a choice of something different or continuing our current decline in the 4th most unequal country on the planet. Do you have anything positive to show how we will be better off in the union going forward. I will add that massive infrastructure spending in London , HS2 etc are not benefits.
"UKIP has launched a massive national billboard poster campaign in advance of the European parliamentary elections on May 22.
The campaign has been funded by Yorkshire businessman Paul Sykes and involves a series of hard-hitting messages about the loss of control of key political decisions to the European Union and the impact it is having on ordinary families.
The posters – to be reinforced by digital and newspaper advertising – focus on the wage compression and reduction in employment opportunities suffered by British workers in the wake of open-door EU immigration, the proportion of British laws now being made in Brussels and the cost of the EU."
Mr Sykes, who has invested £1.5million of his own money in the campaign
UKIP’s posters will run in two waves over the next four weeks and will be displayed on hundreds of prime billboard sites right across the country. There will also be many thousands of digital ads carried by news, entertainment and listings websites."
Most, if not all of us have a great deal of respect for the opinions of
Easterross, carlotta lives in a fantasy world, having left Scotland she has to make out England is great and Scotland is crap and could not survive without the likes of her subsidising us , to justify herself. Stupid enough to think that a few jobs for the next 5 years is a big deal in the decision we are about to make and constantly whinging on about lender of last resort and RBS , etc. A Toom Tabard.
And yet only one of us feels the need to constantly insult the other.
I wonder why that is?
Strange that you equate quoting facts as being insults. Bit insecure methinks.
Do point me to ANY of your posts where you have quoted 'Facts'*
* The sayings of Chairman Eck do not count as 'facts'.....(EDIT - If Eck says 'the moon is made of green cheese' it may be a 'fact' that he said that, but it does not mean the moon is made of green cheese...)
Get up to Scotland and you will feel it immediately, the union is done and you will be choosing passports soon.
I was in Scotland in September for a family funeral - the mood was very much 'no' then - but that's rural Angus for you......
The first line in the Queens speech would be to remove Scottish MPs rights to vote on issues relating to present or future UK business. 59 MPs may remain until independence, but they would be as useful as chocolate teapots.
Regardless of what happens in September, the 2015 election has to include Scottish seats. The Scottish people can't be disenfranchised prior to any separation.
The usual defence of Scots MPs for voting on English matters is "Barnett consequentials" - so abolish Barnett, freeze Scots spending, and that goes away.....
That would be a great negotiating tactic. Followed by 24 hours to take your nuclear junk wherever you were going to park it in future would sort that one out.
Carlotta's just being silly.
I'd expect that the first order of business would be to agree a fixed funding package until independence and then delink Scottish spending from any rUK spending bills (it makes no sense to have Barnett because rUK MPs shouldn't be influencing the Scottish budget).
If I am then so are you! In essence that was what I was suggesting! You have to remove any potential appearance of either side having divided loyalty in the negotiations. You can't have Scottish MPs negotiating on rUK's behalf.....
You said "freeze spending" which is a little more emotive!
I'm just suggesting agreeing the subvention. If Scotland wants to spend more by taxing more that's up to them.
What we don't really know is how public opinion in England will react.
A few straws in the wind.
We know that late last year opinion in rUK tended to be mildly in favour of a currency union. After the Tri-partite intervention it swung 2:1 against.
The Cardiff Univ study from 2012 showed English voters clearly think the Scots get the best deal out of the current set up. If the Scots have voted to leave it, I see no reason why the English should decide to continue that perceived munificence.
Add to that the grievances - real or perceived - published daily by the tabloids, and the sooner this gets resolved, the better for all concerned.
the small proportion whose jobs depend on having a predictable exchange rate with Scotland will be vote-changingly miffed if they think the English government has made life more difficult for them than it needs to be.
Many of them will already be working with multiple currencies,
reality, I know it is hard being a Tory.
So, for the umpteenth time of asking - who will be Lender of Last Resort for Scottish financial institutions?
As normal it will be the countries where they do their business, ie as it was the US that bailed out British banks last time, and UK that bailed out Ireland , Iceland , etc.
Accepting, for one moment, your bizarre assertion that the BoE acted as LoLR to Irish banks, who will act as LoLR to Scottish Banks?
The UK government bailed out Ulster bank via the RBS, and Bradford & Bingley (owned by AIB, I think). Malcolm clearly hasn't noticed that the UK and Dutch(?) governments are currently suing the Icelandii to get their money back...
We were talking about bailing out not court cases. You do not mention the Fed bailing out UK banks in excess of 600B either I note.
Most, if not all of us have a great deal of respect for the opinions of
Easterross, carlotta lives in a fantasy world, having left Scotland she has to make out England is great and Scotland is crap and could not survive without the likes of her subsidising us , to justify herself. Stupid enough to think that a few jobs for the next 5 years is a big deal in the decision we are about to make and constantly whinging on about lender of last resort and RBS , etc. A Toom Tabard.
And yet only one of us feels the need to constantly insult the other.
I wonder why that is?
Strange that you equate quoting facts as being insults. Bit insecure methinks.
Do point me to ANY of your posts where you have quoted 'Facts'*
* The sayings of Chairman Eck do not count as 'facts'.....(EDIT - If Eck says 'the moon is made of green cheese' it may be a 'fact' that he said that, but it does not mean the moon is made of green cheese...)
Get up to Scotland and you will feel it immediately, the union is done and you will be choosing passports soon.
I was in Scotland in September for a family funeral - the mood was very much 'no' then - but that's rural Angus for you......
I thought I better post just to give everyone a break from Malcolm.
I think the thread header is surprisingly counter-intuitive. I, for one, would have thought the minus 41 figure would have had a bigger effect.
[So, apart from nationalism, what is the economic base for Sottish Independence? You cannot be relying on Corporation tax to balance the books can you?]
As a unionist - I'd be basing it on whisky. I think the Yessers will be basing it on wind farms.
JB, Financier is a fraud, supposedly a billionaire financial expert yet knows nothing about finance. Any fool could rhyme off oil , renewables, whisky , tourism just for starters. Scotland is rich in natural resources and any idiot ( almost, except for a few specials on here ) would agree that it can be a successful independent country.
The loss of Scotland will cause more damage to Labour than the mere loss of 41 seats. It will reshape and rebalance Labour more towards the centre than it is already. The English Labour party will be more Blairite and fiscally conservative. As such it will survive and win elections from time to time.
What those of the left don't get is that a yes vote is the end of any possibility of a genuinely left wing government. The chances of this are small but at present they do exist with the more left wing Scots sometimes wagging the dog.
Differentiating between Labour and the tories if Scotland votes yes will be difficult. The main parties are already so close together (much more than either will ever admit) but that trend will be accelerated if Scotland votes yes.
Good news for rUK, not so much for us poor Scots who will have these unintermediated nutters expecting to be presented with their birthright, namely power over the Scottish parish council.
Most, if not all of us have a great deal of respect for the opinions of
Easterross, carlotta lives in a fantasy world, having left Scotland she has to make out England is great and Scotland is crap and could not survive without the likes of her subsidising us , to justify herself. Stupid enough to think that a few jobs for the next 5 years is a big deal in the decision we are about to make and constantly whinging on about lender of last resort and RBS , etc. A Toom Tabard.
And yet only one of us feels the need to constantly insult the other.
I wonder why that is?
Strange that you equate quoting facts as being insults. Bit insecure methinks.
Do point me to ANY of your posts where you have quoted 'Facts'*
* The sayings of Chairman Eck do not count as 'facts'.....(EDIT - If Eck says 'the moon is made of green cheese' it may be a 'fact' that he said that, but it does not mean the moon is made of green cheese...)
Get up to Scotland and you will feel it immediately, the union is done and you will be choosing passports soon.
I was in Scotland in September for a family funeral - the mood was very much 'no' then - but that's rural Angus for you......
Finger on the pulse then
Not exactly Labour DE voters, that's true!
Once again you have to have a snide swipe at the poor. Lucky old you having a rich family all desperate to keep the poor down as long as they are all right Jack.
The first line in the Queens speech would be to remove Scottish MPs rights to vote on issues relating to present or future UK business. 59 MPs may remain until independence, but they would be as useful as chocolate teapots.
Regardless of what happens in September, the 2015 election has to include Scottish seats. The Scottish people can't be disenfranchised prior to any separation.
The usual defence of Scots MPs for voting on English matters is "Barnett consequentials" - so abolish Barnett, freeze Scots spending, and that goes away.....
That would be a great negotiating tactic. Followed by 24 hours to take your nuclear junk wherever you were going to park it in future would sort that one out.
Carlotta's just being silly.
I'd expect that the first order of business would be to agree a fixed funding package until independence and then delink Scottish spending from any rUK spending bills (it makes no sense to have Barnett because rUK MPs shouldn't be influencing the Scottish budget).
If I am then so are you! In essence that was what I was suggesting! You have to remove any potential appearance of either side having divided loyalty in the negotiations. You can't have Scottish MPs negotiating on rUK's behalf.....
You said "freeze spending" which is a little more emotive!
I'm just suggesting agreeing the subvention. If Scotland wants to spend more by taxing more that's up to them.
It's the same thing - "here's a fixed lump of money, do what you will with it, changes in rUK spending will not affect you"
"UKIP has launched a massive national billboard poster campaign in advance of the European parliamentary elections on May 22.
The campaign has been funded by Yorkshire businessman Paul Sykes and involves a series of hard-hitting messages about the loss of control of key political decisions to the European Union and the impact it is having on ordinary families.
The posters – to be reinforced by digital and newspaper advertising – focus on the wage compression and reduction in employment opportunities suffered by British workers in the wake of open-door EU immigration, the proportion of British laws now being made in Brussels and the cost of the EU."
Mr Sykes, who has invested £1.5million of his own money in the campaign
UKIP’s posters will run in two waves over the next four weeks and will be displayed on hundreds of prime billboard sites right across the country. There will also be many thousands of digital ads carried by news, entertainment and listings websites."
We will wish to do what our ancestors have done for the past 900 years, shape the future destiny of Scotland.
Pure nationalist propaganda. The "Scottish people" have not been shaping their own destiny for the last nine hundred years, or at least, no more than the population of England or Ireland. As Colin Kidd so correctly argues:
Cooper's intervention marked a major turning point in constitutional interpretation - though only in Scotland. It gave rise to the widespread delusion that from the 14th-century Declaration of Arbroath Scots inherited a distinctive tradition of popular sovereignty, a historical nonsense that has become the new political orthodoxy in Scottish political culture, espoused by Labour and Liberals as well as by the SNP. ['A British Bundesrat?', LRB, 36(8), (17/04/2014), p.14]
Mr Market Town, I did not say the "Scottish people", I said "we". I have never heard of either Cooper or Colin Kidd, the latter whom I had to look up. He is entitled to his opinion, it neither makes it correct nor incorrect. I repeat I said "we". We are those from the families who are the descendants of the men (and women) who made Britain what it is, from the moment they arrived on these shores, mostly in 1066 but in some cases generations earlier. We were at Hastings. We were at Bannockburn. We signed the Declaration of Arbroath. We went south with James VI in 1603 and arguably sadly supported the signature of the Union document in 1707. We were there when we had a little local difficulty in April 1746. We were there when we kicked the French out of America, Canada and India. We built the railways which crossed continents and shipped goods to and from all corners of the world. We provided the early legislators in virtually every democracy based on the Scottish, English and British models. If Scotland needs us post independence, we will be here.
JJ as ever , you were the one boasting about the great benefits on shipbuilding we were getting from the union , ignoring the minimalist and shrinking number of jobs available. As ever you do not like it when your biased views are shown to be rubbish , hence my mentioning one yard in England for repair only had 12000 jobs and the amount of shrieking about us keeping a handful of jobs. If you are determined to be a whinging Little Englander at least try to get some of your facts right.
You have given no evidence to show that my views are rubbish. In fact, your posts on this topic are rather lacking in facts, and especially links to prove your facts. For instance, BAE only employed 1,200 in shipbuilding in Portsmouth before the closure announcement, with 3,200 in the two Clyde yards.
If you remember, I supported the (sad) closure of Portsmouth in favour of the Clydeside yards, because that deal made sense. This is despite having got married within Portsmouth naval base. That is hardly the attitude of a 'Little Englander'.
It is particularly silly calling me a 'Little Englander' when I talk about my love for your good country so much.
Also, I look forward to you telling the shipworkers on the Clyde that there are just a 'handful' of jobs there.
JJ, you appear to live in a dream. You said proportionally the cuts in England were greater but it was approx 35% of the Glasgow workforce and even using your derisory figures it was 15% at Portsmouth. Fine unionist counting there, and that is one yard in England. They will shut the Clyde yards in near future if we are in the union and will still have circa 10K at Portsmouth.
Why are my figures derisory? Have you produced any of your own? Because if you did, you might realise you are comparing apples and oranges. In fact, it will be a 100% cut in shipbuilding jobs in Portsmouth. Portsmouth is/was not just about shipbuilding: it was a working naval base as well. That is not the case for the Clyde shipyards.
You cannot compare the naval base jobs (e.g. maintaining and servicing) with the shipbuilding jobs as on the Clyde. And there's no way an independent Scotland would get to maintain and service our active warships...
Just face it: we're better off together in so many ways.
What we don't really know is how public opinion in England will react.
A few straws in the wind.
We know that late last year opinion in rUK tended to be mildly in favour of a currency union. After the Tri-partite intervention it swung 2:1 against.
The Cardiff Univ study from 2012 showed English voters clearly think the Scots get the best deal out of the current set up. If the Scots have voted to leave it, I see no reason why the English should decide to continue that perceived munificence.
Add to that the grievances - real or perceived - published daily by the tabloids, and the sooner this gets resolved, the better for all concerned.
the small proportion whose jobs depend on having a predictable exchange rate with Scotland will be vote-changingly miffed if they think the English government has made life more difficult for them than it needs to be.
Many of them will already be working with multiple currencies,
reality, I know it is hard being a Tory.
So, for the umpteenth time of asking - who will be Lender of Last Resort for Scottish financial institutions?
As normal it will be the countries where they do their business, ie as it was the US that bailed out British banks last time, and UK that bailed out Ireland , Iceland , etc.
Accepting, for one moment, your bizarre assertion that the BoE acted as LoLR to Irish banks, who will act as LoLR to Scottish Banks?
The UK government bailed out Ulster bank via the RBS, and Bradford & Bingley (owned by AIB, I think). Malcolm clearly hasn't noticed that the UK and Dutch(?) governments are currently suing the Icelandii to get their money back...
We were talking about bailing out not court cases. You do not mention the Fed bailing out UK banks in excess of 600B either I note.
I did, in a reply to eek. Carlotta's post was on the Irish banks.
We will wish to do what our ancestors have done for the past 900 years, shape the future destiny of Scotland.
Pure nationalist propaganda. The "Scottish people" have not been shaping their own destiny for the last nine hundred years, or at least, no more than the population of England or Ireland. As Colin Kidd so correctly argues:
Cooper's intervention marked a major turning point in constitutional interpretation - though only in Scotland. It gave rise to the widespread delusion that from the 14th-century Declaration of Arbroath Scots inherited a distinctive tradition of popular sovereignty, a historical nonsense that has become the new political orthodoxy in Scottish political culture, espoused by Labour and Liberals as well as by the SNP. ['A British Bundesrat?', LRB, 36(8), (17/04/2014), p.14]
Mr Market Town, I did not say the "Scottish people", I said "we". I have never heard of either Cooper or Colin Kidd, the latter whom I had to look up. He is entitled to his opinion, it neither makes it correct nor incorrect. I repeat I said "we". We are those from the families who are the descendants of the men (and women) who made Britain what it is, from the moment they arrived on these shores, mostly in 1066 but in some cases generations earlier. We were at Hastings. We were at Bannockburn. We signed the Declaration of Arbroath. We went south with James VI in 1603 and arguably sadly supported the signature of the Union document in 1707. We were there when we had a little local difficulty in April 1746. We were there when we kicked the French out of America, Canada and India. We built the railways which crossed continents and shipped goods to and from all corners of the world. We provided the early legislators in virtually every democracy based on the Scottish, English and British models. If Scotland needs us post independence, we will be here.
The first line in the Queens speech would be to remove Scottish MPs rights to vote on issues relating to present or future UK business. 59 MPs may remain until independence, but they would be as useful as chocolate teapots.
Regardless of what happens in September, the 2015 election has to include Scottish seats. The Scottish people can't be disenfranchised prior to any separation.
The usual defence of Scots MPs for voting on English matters is "Barnett consequentials" - so abolish Barnett, freeze Scots spending, and that goes away.....
That would be a great negotiating tactic. Followed by 24 hours to take your nuclear junk wherever you were going to park it in future would sort that one out.
Carlotta's just being silly.
I'd expect that the first order of business would be to agree a fixed funding package until independence and then delink Scottish spending from any rUK spending bills (it makes no sense to have Barnett because rUK MPs shouldn't be influencing the Scottish budget).
If I am then so are you! In essence that was what I was suggesting! You have to remove any potential appearance of either side having divided loyalty in the negotiations. You can't have Scottish MPs negotiating on rUK's behalf.....
You said "freeze spending" which is a little more emotive!
I'm just suggesting agreeing the subvention. If Scotland wants to spend more by taxing more that's up to them.
It's the same thing - "here's a fixed lump of money, do what you will with it, changes in rUK spending will not affect you"
Yes , and for sure it would not be , here is your money , it would be a small amount of it as ever.
The loss of Scotland will cause more damage to Labour than the mere loss of 41 seats. It will reshape and rebalance Labour more towards the centre than it is already. The English Labour party will be more Blairite and fiscally conservative. As such it will survive and win elections from time to time.
What those of the left don't get is that a yes vote is the end of any possibility of a genuinely left wing government. The chances of this are small but at present they do exist with the more left wing Scots sometimes wagging the dog.
Differentiating between Labour and the tories if Scotland votes yes will be difficult. The main parties are already so close together (much more than either will ever admit) but that trend will be accelerated if Scotland votes yes.
Good news for rUK, not so much for us poor Scots who will have these unintermediated nutters expecting to be presented with their birthright, namely power over the Scottish parish council.
Im a Tory, but im a fiscal conservative above everything else. I try to point out to my labour supporting colleagues, that making the sums add up shouldnt be a dividing line between left and right. Under Blair we had fiscal conservatism, though Brown towards 2007/8 though, we had a deficit at the peak of a boom, which ballooned enormously following the crash. But he had his golden rule (though fudged), that debt should not be used to fund non capital expenditure over the cycle.
What we had after 2008 though was spectacular financial incontinence designed to push off all and any difficult decisions until after the 2010 general election.
I thought I better post just to give everyone a break from Malcolm.
I think the thread header is surprisingly counter-intuitive. I, for one, would have thought the minus 41 figure would have had a bigger effect.
[So, apart from nationalism, what is the economic base for Sottish Independence? You cannot be relying on Corporation tax to balance the books can you?]
As a unionist - I'd be basing it on whisky. I think the Yessers will be basing it on wind farms.
JB, Financier is a fraud, supposedly a billionaire financial expert yet knows nothing about finance. Any fool could rhyme off oil , renewables, whisky , tourism just for starters. Scotland is rich in natural resources and any idiot ( almost, except for a few specials on here ) would agree that it can be a successful independent country.
Malcolm I wish I had Financier's petty cash account. I would feel pretty cash rich if I had.
JJ as ever , you were the one boasting about the great benefits on shipbuilding we were getting from the union , ignoring the minimalist and shrinking number of jobs available. As ever you do not like it when your biased views are shown to be rubbish , hence my mentioning one yard in England for repair only had 12000 jobs and the amount of shrieking about us keeping a handful of jobs. If you are determined to be a whinging Little Englander at least try to get some of your facts right.
You have given no evidence to show that my views are rubbish. In fact, your posts on this topic are rather lacking in facts, and especially links to prove your facts. For instance, BAE only employed 1,200 in shipbuilding in Portsmouth before the closure announcement, with 3,200 in the two Clyde yards.
If you remember, I supported the (sad) closure of Portsmouth in favour of the Clydeside yards, because that deal made sense. This is despite having got married within Portsmouth naval base. That is hardly the attitude of a 'Little Englander'.
It is particularly silly calling me a 'Little Englander' when I talk about my love for your good country so much.
Also, I look forward to you telling the shipworkers on the Clyde that there are just a 'handful' of jobs there.
JJ, you appear to live in a dream. You said proportionally the cuts in England were greater but it was approx 35% of the Glasgow workforce and even using your derisory figures it was 15% at Portsmouth. Fine unionist counting there, and that is one yard in England. They will shut the Clyde yards in near future if we are in the union and will still have circa 10K at Portsmouth.
Why are my figures derisory? Have you produced any of your own? Because if you did, you might realise you are comparing apples and oranges. In fact, it will be a 100% cut in shipbuilding jobs in Portsmouth. Portsmouth is/was not just about shipbuilding: it was a working naval base as well. That is not the case for the Clyde shipyards.
You cannot compare the naval base jobs (e.g. maintaining and servicing) with the shipbuilding jobs as on the Clyde. And there's no way an independent Scotland would get to maintain and service our active warships...
Just face it: we're better off together in so many ways.
LOL, so it is OK to just ignore those 12,000 shipyard jobs , just compare this very small department over here that builds a few lifeboats and we can justify the sacrifice we are making to help those pesky Scots who are only losing 35% of their total workforce. Just kid on our 830 is nearly as big as their 1000, the ungrateful lot do not realise what a union benefit they are getting.
Imagine (sorry to get a bit Lennon), Gordon Brewer and Kirsty Wark presenting Newsnight everynight indefinitely and tell me you still want to vote Yes. (just realised that this will probably box me in the "project fear" camp, nevermind....)
[Any fool could rhyme off oil , renewables, whisky , tourism just for starters]
Yeah, but it's all the renewables for the Yessers. Utopia in 5 months. I can't wait.
JB, whisky sounds a lot better to me. I presume you are far from Scotland and have always been if you expect Utopia in 5 months, there will certainly be no-one in Scotland thinking that.
What we don't really know is how public opinion in England will react.
A few straws in the wind.
We know that late last year opinion in rUK tended to be mildly in favour of a currency union. After the Tri-partite intervention it swung 2:1 against.
The Cardiff Univ study from 2012 showed English voters clearly think the Scots get the best deal out of the current set up. If the Scots have voted to leave it, I see no reason why the English should decide to continue that perceived munificence.
Add to that the grievances - real or perceived - published daily by the tabloids, and the sooner this gets resolved, the better for all concerned.
the small proportion whose jobs depend on having a predictable exchange rate with Scotland will be vote-changingly miffed if they think the English government has made life more difficult for them than it needs to be.
Many of them will already be working with multiple currencies,
reality, I know it is hard being a Tory.
So, for the umpteenth time of asking - who will be Lender of Last Resort for Scottish financial institutions?
As normal it will be the countries where they do their business, ie as it was the US that bailed out British banks last time, and UK that bailed out Ireland , Iceland , etc.
Accepting, for one moment, your bizarre assertion that the BoE acted as LoLR to Irish banks, who will act as LoLR to Scottish Banks?
The UK government bailed out Ulster bank via the RBS, and Bradford & Bingley (owned by AIB, I think). Malcolm clearly hasn't noticed that the UK and Dutch(?) governments are currently suing the Icelandii to get their money back...
We were talking about bailing out not court cases. You do not mention the Fed bailing out UK banks in excess of 600B either I note.
I did, in a reply to eek. Carlotta's post was on the Irish banks.
Imagine (sorry to get a bit Lennon), Gordon Brewer and Kirsty Wark presenting Newsnight everynight indefinitely and tell me you still want to vote Yes. (just realised that this will probably box me in the "project fear" camp, nevermind....)
Newsnight is being scrapped in May , we will not be tortured any longer.
I thought I better post just to give everyone a break from Malcolm.
I think the thread header is surprisingly counter-intuitive. I, for one, would have thought the minus 41 figure would have had a bigger effect.
[So, apart from nationalism, what is the economic base for Sottish Independence? You cannot be relying on Corporation tax to balance the books can you?]
As a unionist - I'd be basing it on whisky. I think the Yessers will be basing it on wind farms.
JB, Financier is a fraud, supposedly a billionaire financial expert yet knows nothing about finance. Any fool could rhyme off oil , renewables, whisky , tourism just for starters. Scotland is rich in natural resources and any idiot ( almost, except for a few specials on here ) would agree that it can be a successful independent country.
Malcolm I wish I had Financier's petty cash account. I would feel pretty cash rich if I had.
Easterross, If I was betting I would be on him being on the dole, otherwise if in finance he must be very lucky as he does not show any knowledge regarding financial matters in his posting. No insult intended just what comes across.
Most, if not all of us have a great deal of respect for the opinions of
Easterross, carlotta lives in a fantasy world, having left Scotland she has to make out England is great and Scotland is crap and could not survive without the likes of her subsidising us , to justify herself. Stupid enough to think that a few jobs for the next 5 years is a big deal in the decision we are about to make and constantly whinging on about lender of last resort and RBS , etc. A Toom Tabard.
And yet only one of us feels the need to constantly insult the other.
I wonder why that is?
Strange that you equate quoting facts as being insults. Bit insecure methinks.
Do point me to ANY of your posts where you have quoted 'Facts'*
* The sayings of Chairman Eck do not count as 'facts'.....(EDIT - If Eck says 'the moon is made of green cheese' it may be a 'fact' that he said that, but it does not mean the moon is made of green cheese...)
Get up to Scotland and you will feel it immediately, the union is done and you will be choosing passports soon.
I was in Scotland in September for a family funeral - the mood was very much 'no' then - but that's rural Angus for you......
Finger on the pulse then
Not exactly Labour DE voters, that's true!
Once again you have to have a snide swipe at the poor. Lucky old you having a rich family all desperate to keep the poor down as long as they are all right Jack.
And once again, you ignore the psephological point (that Labour DE voters will decide the result) and climb a boarded the "offended bus"!
You are a well balanced man Malcolm - you have a chip on both shoulders!
Im a Tory, but im a fiscal conservative above everything else. I try to point out to my labour supporting colleagues, that making the sums add up shouldnt be a dividing line between left and right. Under Blair we had fiscal conservatism, though Brown towards 2007/8 though, we had a deficit at the peak of a boom, which ballooned enormously following the crash. But he had his golden rule (though fudged), that debt should not be used to fund non capital expenditure over the cycle.
What we had after 2008 though was spectacular financial incontinence designed to push off all and any difficult decisions until after the 2010 general election.
Not sure I agree with some of that. Under Labour we had fiscal conservatism until about 2002 during the period Brown was following Ken Clarke's plans. After 2002 we had Brownian motion and there was nothing conservative about it.
It was a kind of bastardised Keynesianism, and worked on the basis that growth generated by additional public spending would through some multiplier effect create yet more growth and tax revenue in the future. This proved to be deluded and created the largest structural deficit in the western world.
To think that the problems were caused in 2008 was wrong. All that happened then was that the tide went out and we were found to be more than a little short of swimming wear. The scary thing is that there are still adherents to this Brownian idea. You can usually tell because they will say things like "you cannot compare the accounts of the country and those of a corner shop". Well, actually, you can. It is not a complete parallel but you are much less likely to make mistakes if you bear that model in mind.
If Scotland votes yes these deluded souls will never see power in rUK again.
Most, if not all of us have a great deal of respect for the opinions of
Easterross, carlotta lives in a fantasy world, having left Scotland she has to make out England is great and Scotland is crap and could not survive without the likes of her subsidising us , to justify herself. Stupid enough to think that a few jobs for the next 5 years is a big deal in the decision we are about to make and constantly whinging on about lender of last resort and RBS , etc. A Toom Tabard.
And yet only one of us feels the need to constantly insult the other.
I wonder why that is?
Strange that you equate quoting facts as being insults. Bit insecure methinks.
Do point me to ANY of your posts where you have quoted 'Facts'*
* The sayings of Chairman Eck do not count as 'facts'.....(EDIT - If Eck says 'the moon is made of green cheese' it may be a 'fact' that he said that, but it does not mean the moon is made of green cheese...)
Get up to Scotland and you will feel it immediately, the union is done and you will be choosing passports soon.
I was in Scotland in September for a family funeral - the mood was very much 'no' then - but that's rural Angus for you......
Finger on the pulse then
Not exactly Labour DE voters, that's true!
Once again you have to have a snide swipe at the poor. Lucky old you having a rich family all desperate to keep the poor down as long as they are all right Jack.
And once again, you ignore the psephological point (that Labour DE voters will decide the result) and climb a boarded the "offended bus"!
You are a well balanced man Malcolm - you have a chip on both shoulders!
LOL, that is better, very witty. There is some Scottish humour deep in there after all.
You have given no evidence to show that my views are rubbish. In fact, your posts on this topic are rather lacking in facts, and especially links to prove your facts. For instance, BAE only employed 1,200 in shipbuilding in Portsmouth before the closure announcement, with 3,200 in the two Clyde yards.
If you remember, I supported the (sad) closure of Portsmouth in favour of the Clydeside yards, because that deal made sense. This is despite having got married within Portsmouth naval base. That is hardly the attitude of a 'Little Englander'.
It is particularly silly calling me a 'Little Englander' when I talk about my love for your good country so much.
Also, I look forward to you telling the shipworkers on the Clyde that there are just a 'handful' of jobs there.
JJ, you appear to live in a dream. You said proportionally the cuts in England were greater but it was approx 35% of the Glasgow workforce and even using your derisory figures it was 15% at Portsmouth. Fine unionist counting there, and that is one yard in England. They will shut the Clyde yards in near future if we are in the union and will still have circa 10K at Portsmouth.
Why are my figures derisory? Have you produced any of your own? Because if you did, you might realise you are comparing apples and oranges. In fact, it will be a 100% cut in shipbuilding jobs in Portsmouth. Portsmouth is/was not just about shipbuilding: it was a working naval base as well. That is not the case for the Clyde shipyards.
You cannot compare the naval base jobs (e.g. maintaining and servicing) with the shipbuilding jobs as on the Clyde. And there's no way an independent Scotland would get to maintain and service our active warships...
Just face it: we're better off together in so many ways.
LOL, so it is OK to just ignore those 12,000 shipyard jobs , just compare this very small department over here that builds a few lifeboats and we can justify the sacrifice we are making to help those pesky Scots who are only losing 35% of their total workforce. Just kid on our 830 is nearly as big as their 1000, the ungrateful lot do not realise what a union benefit they are getting.
Yes, it is okay to ignore them because they're irrelevant to shipbuilding, which is what we were taking about.
But if you can't see that, then there's little point in continuing with this conversation.
Mr. G., might be time for you to take a break. Your posts are becoming incoherent and contradictory. You're also quoting figures that are completely bogus and making silly accusations about other posters. Why not take a couple of hours off, then, when your return your posts will back the quality we have come to expect and enjoy.
You have given no evidence to show that my views are rubbish. In fact, your posts on this topic are rather lacking in facts, and especially links to prove your facts. For instance, BAE only employed 1,200 in shipbuilding in Portsmouth before the closure announcement, with 3,200 in the two Clyde yards.
If you remember, I supported the (sad) closure of Portsmouth in favour of the Clydeside yards, because that deal made sense. This is despite having got married within Portsmouth naval base. That is hardly the attitude of a 'Little Englander'.
It is particularly silly calling me a 'Little Englander' when I talk about my love for your good country so much.
Also, I look forward to you telling the shipworkers on the Clyde that there are just a 'handful' of jobs there.
JJ, you appear to live in a dream. You said proportionally the cuts in England were greater but it was approx 35% of the Glasgow workforce and even using your derisory figures it was 15% at Portsmouth. Fine unionist counting there, and that is one yard in England. They will shut the Clyde yards in near future if we are in the union and will still have circa 10K at Portsmouth.
Why are my figures derisory? Have you produced any of your own? Because if you did, you might realise you are comparing apples and oranges. In fact, it will be a 100% cut in shipbuilding jobs in Portsmouth. Portsmouth is/was not just about shipbuilding: it was a working naval base as well. That is not the case for the Clyde shipyards.
You cannot compare the naval base jobs (e.g. maintaining and servicing) with the shipbuilding jobs as on the Clyde. And there's no way an independent Scotland would get to maintain and service our active warships...
Just face it: we're better off together in so many ways.
LOL, so it is OK to just ignore those 12,000 shipyard jobs , just compare this very small department over here that builds a few lifeboats and we can justify the sacrifice we are making to help those pesky Scots who are only losing 35% of their total workforce. Just kid on our 830 is nearly as big as their 1000, the ungrateful lot do not realise what a union benefit they are getting.
Yes, it is okay to ignore them because they're irrelevant to shipbuilding, which is what we were taking about.
But if you can't see that, then there's little point in continuing with this conversation.
JJ, stop digging and just retire battered and bruised. You have been caught talking mince , manipulating numbers and telling absolute porkies. Trying to split hairs that shipyard jobs are not about ships is pretty dire even for you.
I thought I better post just to give everyone a break from Malcolm.
I think the thread header is surprisingly counter-intuitive. I, for one, would have thought the minus 41 figure would have had a bigger effect.
[So, apart from nationalism, what is the economic base for Sottish Independence? You cannot be relying on Corporation tax to balance the books can you?]
As a unionist - I'd be basing it on whisky. I think the Yessers will be basing it on wind farms.
JB, Financier is a fraud, supposedly a billionaire financial expert yet knows nothing about finance. Any fool could rhyme off oil , renewables, whisky , tourism just for starters. Scotland is rich in natural resources and any idiot ( almost, except for a few specials on here ) would agree that it can be a successful independent country.
Malcolm I wish I had Financier's petty cash account. I would feel pretty cash rich if I had.
Easterross, If I was betting I would be on him being on the dole, otherwise if in finance he must be very lucky as he does not show any knowledge regarding financial matters in his posting. No insult intended just what comes across.
Malcolm I am in irregular contact with Financier off-list. Take it from me he is certainly not unemployed and knows his onions on financial matters.
Mr. G., might be time for you to take a break. Your posts are becoming incoherent and contradictory. You're also quoting figures that are completely bogus and making silly accusations about other posters. Why not take a couple of hours off, then, when your return your posts will back the quality we have come to expect and enjoy.
Hurst I would be interested in where I contradict myself. Whilst I do have more pressing matters to attend to I will leave at my convenience. I also wonder where the "accusations" comes in, I may have opinions good or bad on some posters but would imagine they are big enough and ugly enough to stand up for themselves or if they are unable to debate robustly they can choose to leave the field. If they take any of this seriously then they should not be posting anonymously on a public website. However as you are a gentleman and have asked me politely I will desist from poking the wasps nests.
I thought I better post just to give everyone a break from Malcolm.
I think the thread header is surprisingly counter-intuitive. I, for one, would have thought the minus 41 figure would have had a bigger effect.
[So, apart from nationalism, what is the economic base for Sottish Independence? You cannot be relying on Corporation tax to balance the books can you?]
As a unionist - I'd be basing it on whisky. I think the Yessers will be basing it on wind farms.
JB, Financier is a fraud, supposedly a billionaire financial expert yet knows nothing about finance. Any fool could rhyme off oil , renewables, whisky , tourism just for starters. Scotland is rich in natural resources and any idiot ( almost, except for a few specials on here ) would agree that it can be a successful independent country.
Malcolm I wish I had Financier's petty cash account. I would feel pretty cash rich if I had.
Easterross, If I was betting I would be on him being on the dole, otherwise if in finance he must be very lucky as he does not show any knowledge regarding financial matters in his posting. No insult intended just what comes across.
Malcolm I am in irregular contact with Financier off-list. Take it from me he is certainly not unemployed and knows his onions on financial matters.
Easterross, I quite believe it , but he does post some mince. I will desist in future.
JJ, you appear to live in a dream. You said proportionally the cuts in England were greater but it was approx 35% of the Glasgow workforce and even using your derisory figures it was 15% at Portsmouth. Fine unionist counting there, and that is one yard in England. They will shut the Clyde yards in near future if we are in the union and will still have circa 10K at Portsmouth.
Why are my figures derisory? Have you produced any of your own? Because if you did, you might realise you are comparing apples and oranges. In fact, it will be a 100% cut in shipbuilding jobs in Portsmouth. Portsmouth is/was not just about shipbuilding: it was a working naval base as well. That is not the case for the Clyde shipyards.
You cannot compare the naval base jobs (e.g. maintaining and servicing) with the shipbuilding jobs as on the Clyde. And there's no way an independent Scotland would get to maintain and service our active warships...
Just face it: we're better off together in so many ways.
LOL, so it is OK to just ignore those 12,000 shipyard jobs , just compare this very small department over here that builds a few lifeboats and we can justify the sacrifice we are making to help those pesky Scots who are only losing 35% of their total workforce. Just kid on our 830 is nearly as big as their 1000, the ungrateful lot do not realise what a union benefit they are getting.
Yes, it is okay to ignore them because they're irrelevant to shipbuilding, which is what we were taking about.
But if you can't see that, then there's little point in continuing with this conversation.
JJ, stop digging and just retire battered and bruised. You have been caught talking mince , manipulating numbers and telling absolute porkies. Trying to split hairs that shipyard jobs are not about ships is pretty dire even for you.
I'm not taking mince: you're comparing different things. You need to learn the difference between operations, maintenance and building, and the difference between naval bases and ship building yards.
To make this simple, you post your figures, with links.
Sadly, Scotland mainly has shipbuilders that are rather short of contracts. But of course, in your mind that'll be all England's fault, and an independent Scotland would be building more ships that the South Koreans and Japanese combined ...
How can anyone suggest Ed is less than perfect as Labour's leader?
This genius picked the fact that the economy was apparently flatlining as his battleground. By the next election it will be the fastest growing in the EU and the developed economies.
Message to OGH and TSE, isn't it about time we had an "Ed is crap" thread? We haven't had one for simply ages. We are just about IndyRef'd out!!
How about:
Ed is so brilliant he'll save the Union
Its not me:
“Clearly there are many voters in Scotland who want to see Ed Miliband as the next prime minister and for many voters this is an important issue in making up their mind in the referendum. Labour does have a lead in the polls and as a Labour MSP and a candidate for the next General Election, I’m confident of a Labour victory.
“Labour has had a consistent poll lead and Ed Miliband has made a series of positive pledges over energy process freezes and tackling the cost-of-living crisis.”
Comments
Perhaps Monica can be tempted to have a bet on UKIP having their first Scottish electoral success?
I think HMG would probably support a scottish application to the EU. For opponents, look at the domestic opponents of your European allies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Alliance#Members
All that Westminster will be left with is London and the South East,their main interest anyway.
You would have to compete with Norway, which already has the yards, skills, knowledge and track record in that work. You could invest, but would it be the best use of that money?
"We could build military ships for future Scottish Navy. "
Which would be equivalent to the Irish navy: nothing large enough to keep your yards busy.
All in all: good luck in getting anything anywhere near as large-scale. One of the problems is that even the Upper Clyde shipyards are space limited to build the really big ships that are most in demand. Ferries are ideal work, but they are relatively small, limited in number, and competitive.
I see you are envious of the 12,000 jobs in Portsmouth. Are you sure that figure's even correct? According to Wiki, BAE Systems Maritime – Naval Ships only employs 7,000 people in total. And proportionally far more jobs went in English yards than Scottish ones.
Besides, is Scotland the only part of the union allowed to have any industry? Do you begrudge every pound spent on non-Scottish industry? Are you really that spiteful?
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/why2okdhkr/YG-Archives-Pol-ITVWales-120214.pdf
I'd expect that the first order of business would be to agree a fixed funding package until independence and then delink Scottish spending from any rUK spending bills (it makes no sense to have Barnett because rUK MPs shouldn't be influencing the Scottish budget).
The English will be p1ssed if they think the overall package is a soft touch. But they won't really care about specific details.
I'm fine with a currency union - provided, of course, that there are appropriate controls over Scottish fiscal and monetary policy, and a substantial payment for underwriting the banking sector as a LoLR. But I can't see why the Scots would want that for any more than a transitional period.
Within a week she's told your parents you're a cross dresser, and you've posted naked photos of her on to FaceBook.
It's not going to be easy, this Independence malarky, but that's no reason why it shouldn't go ahead. Once the Scots vote Yes, I want my government to get the best deal they can, bugger the Scots, and I fully expect the Scottish government to want the same for their own people.
But after saying 'No' very clearly and the public being 2:1 against there will almost certainly be a political price to pay. Could be helpful for UKIP.
EU Parliament: SNP 37%, Lab 28%, Con 11%, UKIP 10%, LD 7%.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/poll-says-scots-more-likely-to-vote-yes-if-they-think-the-torys-will-win-th.1398070214
UKIP surge reaches Scotland!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)#Scottish_polls
Wales is running away from any form of independence as fast as they can, as they know that they will have to raise taxes significantly to support their current public sector.
Wales has a deficient infrastructure - road, rail and IT as well as health and education and they are trying to get Westminster to pay for much of it. However, as certain matters are already devolved, then Westminster has very much a deaf ear.
Without that infrastructure in place, then jobs and investment will not come easily to Wales.
Whatever happened to long-term much respected poster and sometime thread writer (not to mention great tennis tipster) Henry G Manson ?
He doesn't seem to have been around for some while. With the GE now on the horizon his considerable knowledge of Labour Party workings would be greatly appreciated.
I can't find a Scotsman.com article giving the EU numbers though.
"Although at 10%, UKIP support is far lower in Scotland than elsewhere in Britain, that is still enough to put the party just a point behind the Conservatives – and consequently just a point away from winning a seat. "
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scots-are-driven-to-vote-yes-by-tory-success-1-3382555
I do remember Mr. Manson's tennis tips fondly, and his very useful advice (relying mostly but not entirely on past head-to-head performance). A very sound chap, Mr. Manson.
With UKIP doing better than Lib Dems in Scotland, Lib Dems are going to have to change the way they present their EU policy.
Lib Dem EU policies are actually localism, subsidiarity (of the EU), and reform of the EU. But instead the EU fanatics have chosen to present Lib Dem policy as an unconditional IN. The public may be in favour of being in the EU but not unconditionally.
As you purport to be the infallible expert of Scottish Independence, please will you point me to one document (not more than one year old) that sets out the economic policy for Scotland post independence with all the income, expenditure and taxation policies (Including employment details) and sets out all the assumptions made to achieve those policies and includes Scotland's balance sheet.
Thank you.
If you remember, I supported the (sad) closure of Portsmouth in favour of the Clydeside yards, because that deal made sense. This is despite having got married within Portsmouth naval base. That is hardly the attitude of a 'Little Englander'.
It is particularly silly calling me a 'Little Englander' when I talk about my love for your good country so much.
Also, I look forward to you telling the shipworkers on the Clyde that there are just a 'handful' of jobs there.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100260182/the-next-tory-plot-to-embarrass-david-cameron-on-europe-is-already-taking-shape/
http://www.ukip.org/volunteer
It further concerns me that given no negotiations have taken place etc that you could actually believe such data exists, so must conclude you are taking the piss or are indeed financially illiterate.
PS. I do not remember purporting to be an expert in anything never mind an infallible one, you do seem somewhat confused.
http://www.ukip.org/ukip_membership_hits_a_new_record_high
You've got to be in it, to win with it!
"A senior Tory source said: 'Alistair Darling's true colours have come through now – he's a middlingly competent accountant with zero charisma.
'You never see him. Where is the big figure to lead the campaign and take the fight to Salmond? It's just dismal at the moment.'"
http://tinyurl.com/jwbjz9m
" The prospect of a Tory government would see a two per cent swing from undecided to boost Yes to 41% while the No vote remains unchanged.
The prospect of a Labour government would see support for independence fall to 36%, support for the union surge to 44% and leave 20% undecided."
I wonder why that is?
18% of Constituency Con voters, and 17% of Constituency Plaid voters were choosing UKIP at EU Parliament. (also 6% of Lab, 2% of LD)
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/why2okdhkr/YG-Archives-Pol-ITVWales-120214.pdf
It's ridiculous the number of outright lies the pro-Russian side has to rely on: eastern Ukraine wants to be part of Russia, the removal of a president by parliament was "violent coup", a constitutional supermajority vote was "illegal", the Russian language was banned... it's all just lies and smears.
Couldn't be anything to do with Labour voters deciding it, could it?
* The sayings of Chairman Eck do not count as 'facts'.....(EDIT - If Eck says 'the moon is made of green cheese' it may be a 'fact' that he said that, but it does not mean the moon is made of green cheese...)
I ask a genuine question that should be asked by every person eligible to vote in the Referendum and you deny that such a document exists.
So, apart from nationalism, what is the economic base for Sottish Independence? You cannot be relying on Corporation tax to balance the books can you?
So Salmond, who worked as an economist for RBS, is basing his future economic policy on a finger in the wind. So if he does not like the numbers post-referendum, he will want to revert to devomax?
RBS, like all foreign banks with substantial US operations, accessed the Fed discount window to provide incremental liquidity for their US operations. This was a short term loan, since fully repaid, and was available to all US market participants.
The US did not underwrite any of the parent company liabilities or take any equity in the company, and hence it was not a "bail out" in anything but malcom's fevered imagination
From today’s Herald:
“Both sides of the independence debate will attempt to win over undecided voters this week with poster campaigns as senior Coalition sources admitted they have to have a more ‘explicitly’ positive pro-Union message.
The Tory-LibDem Government rejected accusations that its campaign is on the wrong track or scaremongering but a government source said: ‘We need to be more explicit about the fact that we are being positive in our message.
Most of what we say is very positive, but it is the negative parts that are currently attracting attention. We need to be more overt about how positive we are actually being.’”
Pity they did not check with their partners
http://wingsoverscotland.com/laughter-the-best-medicine/
I thought I better post just to give everyone a break from Malcolm.
I think the thread header is surprisingly counter-intuitive. I, for one, would have thought the minus 41 figure would have had a bigger effect.
[So, apart from nationalism, what is the economic base for Sottish Independence? You cannot be relying on Corporation tax to balance the books can you?]
As a unionist - I'd be basing it on whisky. I think the Yessers will be basing it on wind farms.
Superstitious orders? It appears you are simply a power worshipper who thinks all power and property should lie with the State i.e. something you control, to the detriment of minorities. I agree that the church should be subject to the law as everybody else (hence the end of Benefit of Clergy), but it does not mean its property can be seized.
"It therefore fell to the Crown to administer church lands" is an interesting way of describing seizing land and buildings, stripping the lead off monastery roofs and flogging the lot to the highest bidder and pocketing the loot.
Orders are sometimes today thrown out of dioceses (for various reasons), but the bishop has no right to the property. As you yourself state, the proceeds were donated to found other charitable institutions, which included Oxford University, which was a Catholic institution at the time (not mentioned by you, Mr. Tudor Expert). Silly me. I thought this a political site, as in politicalbetting.com. They were murdered. Remind me what crimes they had committed?
And whatabout all the martyrs created by Henry VIII, which you decline to mention. All legal and above board according to you. Tell me, are you a time-traveller? You views (and language) certainly belong in the 15th Century.
Scotland's GDP etc is well documented and even though it is not the real 100% number it shows Scotland is very viable and will be among the richest countries in the world, you would have read that or heard it from people such as David Cameron if you had been listening.
If you are stupid enough to think that Salmond does not have plans in place and understands exactly where we are at present , then again you are stupid.
No-one knows the future , but what is obvious is that it is a choice of something different or continuing our current decline in the 4th most unequal country on the planet.
Do you have anything positive to show how we will be better off in the union going forward. I will add that massive infrastructure spending in London , HS2 etc are not benefits.
The campaign has been funded by Yorkshire businessman Paul Sykes and involves a series of hard-hitting messages about the loss of control of key political decisions to the European Union and the impact it is having on ordinary families.
The posters – to be reinforced by digital and newspaper advertising – focus on the wage compression and reduction in employment opportunities suffered by British workers in the wake of open-door EU immigration, the proportion of British laws now being made in Brussels and the cost of the EU."
Mr Sykes, who has invested £1.5million of his own money in the campaign
UKIP’s posters will run in two waves over the next four weeks and will be displayed on hundreds of prime billboard sites right across the country. There will also be many thousands of digital ads carried by news, entertainment and listings websites."
http://www.ukip.org/ukip_has_just_launched_its_biggest_ever_advertising_campaign
http://www.ukip.org/ukip_membership_hits_a_new_record_high
UKIP announced 35,000 members on 31 March.
twitter.com/UKIP/status/450579335419015169
I'm just suggesting agreeing the subvention. If Scotland wants to spend more by taxing more that's up to them.
What those of the left don't get is that a yes vote is the end of any possibility of a genuinely left wing government. The chances of this are small but at present they do exist with the more left wing Scots sometimes wagging the dog.
Differentiating between Labour and the tories if Scotland votes yes will be difficult. The main parties are already so close together (much more than either will ever admit) but that trend will be accelerated if Scotland votes yes.
Good news for rUK, not so much for us poor Scots who will have these unintermediated nutters expecting to be presented with their birthright, namely power over the Scottish parish council.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/political-parties-annual-accounts/2012#UKIP
Mr Market Town, I did not say the "Scottish people", I said "we". I have never heard of either Cooper or Colin Kidd, the latter whom I had to look up. He is entitled to his opinion, it neither makes it correct nor incorrect. I repeat I said "we". We are those from the families who are the descendants of the men (and women) who made Britain what it is, from the moment they arrived on these shores, mostly in 1066 but in some cases generations earlier. We were at Hastings. We were at Bannockburn. We signed the Declaration of Arbroath. We went south with James VI in 1603 and arguably sadly supported the signature of the Union document in 1707. We were there when we had a little local difficulty in April 1746. We were there when we kicked the French out of America, Canada and India. We built the railways which crossed continents and shipped goods to and from all corners of the world. We provided the early legislators in virtually every democracy based on the Scottish, English and British models. If Scotland needs us post independence, we will be here.
You cannot compare the naval base jobs (e.g. maintaining and servicing) with the shipbuilding jobs as on the Clyde. And there's no way an independent Scotland would get to maintain and service our active warships...
Just face it: we're better off together in so many ways.
Yeah, but it's all the renewables for the Yessers. Utopia in 5 months. I can't wait.
The Illuminati?
Under Blair we had fiscal conservatism, though Brown towards 2007/8 though, we had a deficit at the peak of a boom, which ballooned enormously following the crash. But he had his golden rule (though fudged), that debt should not be used to fund non capital expenditure over the cycle.
What we had after 2008 though was spectacular financial incontinence designed to push off all and any difficult decisions until after the 2010 general election.
You are a well balanced man Malcolm - you have a chip on both shoulders!
It was a kind of bastardised Keynesianism, and worked on the basis that growth generated by additional public spending would through some multiplier effect create yet more growth and tax revenue in the future. This proved to be deluded and created the largest structural deficit in the western world.
To think that the problems were caused in 2008 was wrong. All that happened then was that the tide went out and we were found to be more than a little short of swimming wear. The scary thing is that there are still adherents to this Brownian idea. You can usually tell because they will say things like "you cannot compare the accounts of the country and those of a corner shop". Well, actually, you can. It is not a complete parallel but you are much less likely to make mistakes if you bear that model in mind.
If Scotland votes yes these deluded souls will never see power in rUK again.
But if you can't see that, then there's little point in continuing with this conversation.
Hear, hear. New thread please - we've got another 5 months of this fun.
However as you are a gentleman and have asked me politely I will desist from poking the wasps nests.
To make this simple, you post your figures, with links.
Sadly, Scotland mainly has shipbuilders that are rather short of contracts. But of course, in your mind that'll be all England's fault, and an independent Scotland would be building more ships that the South Koreans and Japanese combined ...
This genius picked the fact that the economy was apparently flatlining as his battleground. By the next election it will be the fastest growing in the EU and the developed economies.
Then he picked the standard of living at the time that real wages were starting to grow. They are now forecast to be higher at the next election than at the last: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10777538/Feelgood-forecast-will-boost-Conservatives.html
Making David Moyes' leadership look not the worst is a genuine public service which should be commended.
Ed is so brilliant he'll save the Union
Its not me:
“Clearly there are many voters in Scotland who want to see Ed Miliband as the next prime minister and for many voters this is an important issue in making up their mind in the referendum. Labour does have a lead in the polls and as a Labour MSP and a candidate for the next General Election, I’m confident of a Labour victory.
“Labour has had a consistent poll lead and Ed Miliband has made a series of positive pledges over energy process freezes and tackling the cost-of-living crisis.”
Richard Baker, Labour MSP
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scots-are-driven-to-vote-yes-by-tory-success-1-3382555