He's a representative of what a lot of people on both sides of the border see as the sum of awful modern Tory attitudes.
Oh, absolutely. He's the embodiment of the modern Tory push to really understand the root causes of poverty and help people who have been trapped and abandoned by the benefits system - which led to a staggering 25% of the working age population of Labour-fiefdom Glasgow being on out-of-work benefits. And that was in 2007, at the height of the economic boom, when money was pouring into the Treasury, when Labour had been in power for a full decade, with a Scottish Chancellor and a raft of Scottish ministers, so there was absolutely no excuse or possibility of blaming the evil Tories.
So, yes, terrible modern Tory attitudes, actually wanting to do something about this.
I'll do my best to try to understand you. Now, work.
I'd rather let Scotland go then break up England and end up with the sort of paralysed federal mess that Germany has, which prevents the country from ever acting in a concerted way internationally.
Germany did act in a concerted way internationally, in 1939-45. I'm not sure there is a consensus that it was a good idea. Even with less drastic examples, there's a lot to be said for a system that restrains countries from acting too energetically on their own.
Germany 1939-45 was a fascist dictatorship, thus completely incomparable to the modern UK. Germany today is not even capable of acting energetically with others, if you look at either Libya or Russia, to take two examples.
So the Labour party is transferring its' loans to a trade union dominated bank for "commercial reasons"?
This trade union dominated bank is currently only allowed to have a banking licence because it is under the wise and benevolent control of the Co-Op bank?
And the Co-Op want to sell their shares in that bank with the Unions having first refusal leaving it entirely under the control of the Unions (assuming it can keep its banking licence)?
So we are likely to be left with the Labour party funded by a bank entirely controlled by their largest contributors so that they are dependent on them not only for income but also loans to fund elections?
And Ed Miliband, who wants to reform the relationship with the Union movement so they have less say over Labour policy, is ok with this?
So we are likely to be left with the Labour party funded by a bank entirely controlled by their largest contributors so that they are dependent on them not only for income but also loans to fund elections?
And Ed Miliband, who wants to reform the relationship with the Union movement so they have less say over Labour policy, is ok with this?
Wow. This man never ceases to amaze me.
Worry not. We can take great comfort from the top quality banking supervision of the last Govt. of which Ed was a Minister....
The one that allowed a boom and bust that very nearly broke the world economy.
That's more to do with it's historical legacy than its federal structure; the US hasn't been prevented from acting assertively as and when it saw fit, despite its own federalism.
The US is five times the size, so you'd expect it to have more power. It also has given much power to the federal level and that power is enshrined in a difficult to change constitution. If we did it in the UK, we'd just end up with more and more power devolved locally until the centre was utterly emasculated. That's clearly what we've seen with Scotland and Wales. Even London is pushing for getting education, which is crazy.
On a further point, a huge swathe of central, south and east England is economically integrated and effectively functions as one economy. It would be stupid to split this up just so we can say we have devolved regions.
The reported announcement from the DWP this morning was interesting and goes back to what I was saying the other day about the nuts and bolts of administration being harder to disentangle than the fancy stuff of currency and defence.
Mr G's response was, alas, predictable and silly, if amusing ( I am amazed that there are any dole queues in Scotland because apparently they contain people who can design warships, run complicated procurement programmes, and now we discover, design, procure and implement mission critical IT systems in 18 months - very clever people on the dole in Scotland).
On the political level I find it gob-smacking just how little thought the SNP seem to have put into how to set up a new state and what will be required. Independence has been the reason for its existence for donkey's years yet they seem to have no plans to deal with what will be required if they achieve a yes vote. The idea seems to be that Anglo-Scottish government will carry on in exactly the same way as now, except for the bits that Scotland wants to change, bizarre, very naive and/or arrogant to the point of stupidity.
If there is a yes vote then I fear lots of Scots are going to be very upset when the reality hits home. Scottish politicians will no doubt blame the English (why change a winning formula). I begin to understand Mr. Brooke's warning of half a century of grief ahead.
Ed opened his speech by praising the Co-op: “You have always understood that ethics of responsibility, co-operation and stewardship must be at the heart of what we do. That’s one of the reasons why the Co-op Bank has in the last week seen a 25% rise in applications for accounts.” He introduced the Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, who was standing alongside him, as “a proud Labour and Co-operative MP”.
On the political level I find it gob-smacking just how little thought the SNP seem to have put into how to set up a new state and what will be required.
There was an entire paper on pensions in an independent Scotland published a year ahead of the referendum.
As you can see if you read the paper the resources to administer pensions in an independent Scotland already exist. There will be no need for new systems.
The reported announcement from the DWP this morning was interesting and goes back to what I was saying the other day about the nuts and bolts of administration being harder to disentangle than the fancy stuff of currency and defence.
Mr G's response was, alas, predictable and silly, if amusing ( I am amazed that there are any dole queues in Scotland because apparently they contain people who can design warships, run complicated procurement programmes, and now we discover, design, procure and implement mission critical IT systems in 18 months - very clever people on the dole in Scotland).
On the political level I find it gob-smacking just how little thought the SNP seem to have put into how to set up a new state and what will be required. Independence has been the reason for its existence for donkey's years yet they seem to have no plans to deal with what will be required if they achieve a yes vote. The idea seems to be that Anglo-Scottish government will carry on in exactly the same way as now, except for the bits that Scotland wants to change, bizarre, very naive and/or arrogant to the point of stupidity.
If there is a yes vote then I fear lots of Scots are going to be very upset when the reality hits home. Scottish politicians will no doubt blame the English (why change a winning formula). I begin to understand Mr. Brooke's warning of half a century of grief ahead.
Which is why I'm so looking forward to the vote being Yes.....
On the political level I find it gob-smacking just how little thought the SNP seem to have put into how to set up a new state and what will be required.
There was an entire paper on pensions in an independent Scotland published a year ahead of the referendum.
As you can see if you read the paper the resources to administer pensions in an independent Scotland already exist. There will be no need for new systems.
Did I say anything about pensions?
*checks posts*
Oh, no I didn't. Sorry the point of your reply was?
On the political level I find it gob-smacking just how little thought the SNP seem to have put into how to set up a new state and what will be required.
There was an entire paper on pensions in an independent Scotland published a year ahead of the referendum.
As you can see if you read the paper the resources to administer pensions in an independent Scotland already exist. There will be no need for new systems.
Did I say anything about pensions?
*checks posts*
Oh, no I didn't. Sorry the point of your reply was?
Your post was about an announcement this morning that was about pensions. My point is that there has been far more thinking about how independence will be delivered than you seem to realise.
The reported announcement from the DWP this morning was interesting and goes back to what I was saying the other day about the nuts and bolts of administration being harder to disentangle than the fancy stuff of currency and defence.
Mr G's response was, alas, predictable and silly, if amusing ( I am amazed that there are any dole queues in Scotland because apparently they contain people who can design warships, run complicated procurement programmes, and now we discover, design, procure and implement mission critical IT systems in 18 months - very clever people on the dole in Scotland).
On the political level I find it gob-smacking just how little thought the SNP seem to have put into how to set up a new state and what will be required. Independence has been the reason for its existence for donkey's years yet they seem to have no plans to deal with what will be required if they achieve a yes vote. The idea seems to be that Anglo-Scottish government will carry on in exactly the same way as now, except for the bits that Scotland wants to change, bizarre, very naive and/or arrogant to the point of stupidity.
If there is a yes vote then I fear lots of Scots are going to be very upset when the reality hits home. Scottish politicians will no doubt blame the English (why change a winning formula). I begin to understand Mr. Brooke's warning of half a century of grief ahead.
There's a whole raft of costs associated with splitting up the military which will hoover up the defence budget in double quick time. I suspect Eck and Co are deliberately keeping very quiet about this, and other vast expenses.
On the political level I find it gob-smacking just how little thought the SNP seem to have put into how to set up a new state and what will be required.
As you can see if you read the paper the resources to administer pensions in an independent Scotland already exist. There will be no need for new systems.
I can also see that the Scottish government will negotiate a transitional arrangement for cross-border schemes - how's that working out?
On the political level I find it gob-smacking just how little thought the SNP seem to have put into how to set up a new state and what will be required.
As you can see if you read the paper the resources to administer pensions in an independent Scotland already exist. There will be no need for new systems.
I can also see that the Scottish government will negotiate a transitional arrangement for cross-border schemes - how's that working out?
You'll have to ask them, Carlotta. One presumes they are being supported by the UK Government seeing as far more rUK pension scheme members will be affected by the fallout if there arent any.
On the political level I find it gob-smacking just how little thought the SNP seem to have put into how to set up a new state and what will be required.
There was an entire paper on pensions in an independent Scotland published a year ahead of the referendum.
As you can see if you read the paper the resources to administer pensions in an independent Scotland already exist. There will be no need for new systems.
The starting point for that paper is that Scotland has118% of UK GDP per head of population in 2011 including North Sea Oil revenue so it can afford to improve its pension provision. Is it really useful to read any further?
At what point is it better to admit what everyone knows anyway and end the charade of claiming that Gerry was never in the IRA and Martin left when he was young? Because lying about it all the time cant do much for the credibility of their press people.
That depends on whether you want to be informed about the Scottish government's plans for pensions post independence. If you do then it is.
No, I disagree. Built upon such absurd hypothesis it really gives no insight at all into the choices an Independent Scotland would have to make.
The reality is that an Independent Scotland will need to make larger cuts in public spending than are forecast for the UK as a whole (which are frightening enough). They will not have the credit record, they have a worse deficit per head of population, they have a larger public sector with more entitled to an index linked unfunded pension and north sea oil revenue has fallen off a cliff.
So an independent Scotland will need to make some hard choices, not empty a sweetie jar. I see nothing about these kinds of choices in that paper.
That depends on whether you want to be informed about the Scottish government's plans for pensions post independence. If you do then it is.
No, I disagree. Built upon such absurd hypothesis it really gives no insight at all into the choices an Independent Scotland would have to make.
The reality is that an Independent Scotland will need to make larger cuts in public spending than are forecast for the UK as a whole (which are frightening enough). They will not have the credit record, they have a worse deficit per head of population, they have a larger public sector with more entitled to an index linked unfunded pension and north sea oil revenue has fallen off a cliff.
So an independent Scotland will need to make some hard choices, not empty a sweetie jar. I see nothing about these kinds of choices in that paper.
Agree with them or disagree with them but those are the Scottish government's plans for pensions after independence. You could try making a case for why those plans would be impossible to implement post independence but I doubt you'd succeed.
The real problem is that the Salmond acolytes actually believe in the coming of Fantasy Eckland. Nothing anyone says or does will change their delusion that Salmond will be able to produce all the rabbits out of his hat that he says are hidden in it.
They can't really understand that the majority of people in England do not give a single thought in a year to Scotland unlike their totally besotted selves and if anything, they cannot believe that the English would quite like to be rid of Scotland, the Barnett Formula and the continuous winge from the SNP.
Then for all the so called Common Sense that the English will allow Salmond to dictate the terms of the divorce - well, he can walk on water can't he, turn water into whisky and on the 21st September he will rise from the dead and promise another referendum.
On the political level I find it gob-smacking just how little thought the SNP seem to have put into how to set up a new state and what will be required.
There was an entire paper on pensions in an independent Scotland published a year ahead of the referendum.
As you can see if you read the paper the resources to administer pensions in an independent Scotland already exist. There will be no need for new systems.
Did I say anything about pensions?
*checks posts*
Oh, no I didn't. Sorry the point of your reply was?
Your post was about an announcement this morning that was about pensions. My point is that there has been far more thinking about how independence will be delivered than you seem to realise.
Mr. Neil, I think the announcement this morning was about a little more than just pensions. However, my point was, as I said, about how the nuts and bolts of administration could be untangled in the event of a yes vote and what the knock on consequences were likely to be. If you think the SNP have got this nailed down and have given it sufficient thought I have no problem.
Fraser Nelson @FraserNelson 3h Puzzled by the idea that earnings > inflation= Osborne out of trouble. Attached graph shows how weak recovery will be pic.twitter.com/J7UlUZcVPF
On the political level I find it gob-smacking just how little thought the SNP seem to have put into how to set up a new state and what will be required.
As you can see if you read the paper the resources to administer pensions in an independent Scotland already exist. There will be no need for new systems.
I can also see that the Scottish government will negotiate a transitional arrangement for cross-border schemes - how's that working out?
You'll have to ask them, Carlotta. One presumes they are being supported by the UK Government seeing as far more rUK pension scheme members will be affected by the fallout if there arent any.
Not well:
The European Commission has decided not to introduce regulations that would have made private pensions cheaper to operate across international borders.
In a surprise move, the Commission has decided to stick to the current regulations.
If Scotland votes for independence in September, many private pension schemes would become cross-border schemes.
Did anyone try to split Scotland into Lowlands, Highlands, and Islands? Of course not.
Your Unionist mates are never done flying a 'Shetland, Orkney & Borders should remain in the UK' kite.
Especially as it wouldn't be the UK anyway, which would have disappeared. But England, W & NI. One could just as logically invite the Isle of Wight to become part of Scotland.
Carnyx, I think of you as being the smart nationalist. Please tell me you don't really believe this tripe. The United Kingdom was formed from the union of the Kingdom of Great Britain with the Kingdom of Ireland. The fact that part of the Kingdom of Great Britain leaves wouldn't end the UK any more than when part of the Kingdom of Ireland left. If Scotland gets independence, it wouldn't happen from a repeal of the Act of Union 1707. It would be from a new Act that gets passed releasing Scotland as a sovereign state, while the UK would still continue to exist.
I can see where you are coming from, but it is important to bear in mind that that is value laden terminology. To state that the UK will still persist under that name implies that it is the continuing state and Scotland will be a de novo state. Hence best to avoid using that term for now. EWNI is neutral and not value laden in that sense (though I accept that it can be seen as value laden in the sense that it is seen by some as a downgrade.)
But that's exactly what would happen. We have a direct example in the creation of the Irish Free State. The UK continued (with exactly the same name, until they chose to alter it six years later), and was the successor state under international law, while Ireland became a new state in international law. This isn't a matter of terminology, it's a legal thing. All the existing treaties would continue to be held by the UK, and Scotland would have to create new ones.
which as we discussed yesterday does rather suggest that the oil and gas in international waters would continue to belong to the UK.
On the political level I find it gob-smacking just how little thought the SNP seem to have put into how to set up a new state and what will be required.
As you can see if you read the paper the resources to administer pensions in an independent Scotland already exist. There will be no need for new systems.
I can also see that the Scottish government will negotiate a transitional arrangement for cross-border schemes - how's that working out?
You'll have to ask them, Carlotta. One presumes they are being supported by the UK Government seeing as far more rUK pension scheme members will be affected by the fallout if there arent any.
Not well:
The European Commission has decided not to introduce regulations that would have made private pensions cheaper to operate across international borders.
In a surprise move, the Commission has decided to stick to the current regulations.
If Scotland votes for independence in September, many private pension schemes would become cross-border schemes.
Why should we trust what they say on resources either?
The draft directive has nothing whatsoever to do with the Scottish government's plans for dealing with this issue. The paper I linked to said that the government would pursue transitional arrangements within the current directive not that it would lobby for (or expect to get) changes to the directive itself.
On the political level I find it gob-smacking just how little thought the SNP seem to have put into how to set up a new state and what will be required.
As you can see if you read the paper the resources to administer pensions in an independent Scotland already exist. There will be no need for new systems.
I can also see that the Scottish government will negotiate a transitional arrangement for cross-border schemes - how's that working out?
You'll have to ask them, Carlotta. One presumes they are being supported by the UK Government seeing as far more rUK pension scheme members will be affected by the fallout if there arent any.
Not well:
The European Commission has decided not to introduce regulations that would have made private pensions cheaper to operate across international borders.
In a surprise move, the Commission has decided to stick to the current regulations.
If Scotland votes for independence in September, many private pension schemes would become cross-border schemes.
Why should we trust what they say on resources either?
The draft directive has nothing whatsoever to do with the Scottish government's plans for dealing with this issue.
Who to believe?
Joanne Segars, chief executive of the National Association of Pension Funds, said: "Today's announcement of a new EU pensions directive has major implications for pension schemes as part of the debate on independence for Scotland.
"The knock-on effect of this is that schemes with members both north and south of the border would become much more expensive to run if Scotland were to vote for independence."
But as you say - it will cause problems both sides of the border......that'll ease negotiations......
Do the "Better Together " people really believe IDS is the best person to deliver this message?Are they seeking poll crossover before they wake up? It makes you wonder if they do actually want to win.Being lectured to by an English Tory must be bad enough but by one of the most hated English Tories questions what exactly are they trying to achieve.Expect Yes to go up a couple of ticks.
I would suggest that it's not good territory for the 'no' side even if it wasnt being fronted by someone who is surely extremely unpopular in Scotland.
If Scots really are so feeble-minded and vacuous that they will be influenced by whether they happen to dislike the messenger, then so be it (personally I don't expect that they are).
Of course they are, we all are, if you have a message to get across dont give it to someone incredibly unpopular to deliver, it's politics 101.
Well, unless you want the other side to win, of course. Leaving Kinnock in charge after 1997 ensured defeat in 1992, which to Labour felt like quite a good election to lose.
That depends on whether you want to be informed about the Scottish government's plans for pensions post independence. If you do then it is.
No, I disagree. Built upon such absurd hypothesis it really gives no insight at all into the choices an Independent Scotland would have to make.
The reality is that an Independent Scotland will need to make larger cuts in public spending than are forecast for the UK as a whole (which are frightening enough). They will not have the credit record, they have a worse deficit per head of population, they have a larger public sector with more entitled to an index linked unfunded pension and north sea oil revenue has fallen off a cliff.
So an independent Scotland will need to make some hard choices, not empty a sweetie jar. I see nothing about these kinds of choices in that paper.
Apart from anything if iScotland wants to join the Euro they will have to conform to the 60% debt-to-GDP ratio. This will require substantial fiscal tightening. Over and above what is planned under current "austerity".
That depends on whether you want to be informed about the Scottish government's plans for pensions post independence. If you do then it is.
No, I disagree. Built upon such absurd hypothesis it really gives no insight at all into the choices an Independent Scotland would have to make.
The reality is that an Independent Scotland will need to make larger cuts in public spending than are forecast for the UK as a whole (which are frightening enough). They will not have the credit record, they have a worse deficit per head of population, they have a larger public sector with more entitled to an index linked unfunded pension and north sea oil revenue has fallen off a cliff.
So an independent Scotland will need to make some hard choices, not empty a sweetie jar. I see nothing about these kinds of choices in that paper.
Apart from anything if iScotland wants to join the Euro they will have to conform to the 60% debt-to-GDP ratio. This will require substantial fiscal tightening. Over and above what is planned under current "austerity".
Mr. Topping, if iScotland wants to join the Euro then it would need to have its own central bank, its own currency and prove a track record in compliance with the laid down criteria. Alternatively, the EU would just bin all those requirements because they would be desperate to have such an economic and energy powerhouse inside their tent. You pays your money and takes your pick.
That depends on whether you want to be informed about the Scottish government's plans for pensions post independence. If you do then it is.
No, I disagree. Built upon such absurd hypothesis it really gives no insight at all into the choices an Independent Scotland would have to make.
The reality is that an Independent Scotland will need to make larger cuts in public spending than are forecast for the UK as a whole (which are frightening enough). They will not have the credit record, they have a worse deficit per head of population, they have a larger public sector with more entitled to an index linked unfunded pension and north sea oil revenue has fallen off a cliff.
So an independent Scotland will need to make some hard choices, not empty a sweetie jar. I see nothing about these kinds of choices in that paper.
Apart from anything if iScotland wants to join the Euro they will have to conform to the 60% debt-to-GDP ratio. This will require substantial fiscal tightening. Over and above what is planned under current "austerity".
Mr. Topping, if iScotland wants to join the Euro then it would need to have its own central bank, its own currency and prove a track record in compliance with the laid down criteria. Alternatively, the EU would just bin all those requirements because they would be desperate to have such an economic and energy powerhouse inside their tent. You pays your money and takes your pick.
Well yes but we were discussing the fiscal wiggle-room. None of this will happen overnight and @DavidL mentioned cuts in public spending.
But yes you are right of course, they will need to do all that. I hope today's YES generation can be relied on to be selfless in suffering more now so that future generations will thrive as an independent nation.
One of UKIP's MEP candidates was on the British Stratego team at the Stratego 2012 world championships. I had no idea there was a Stratego World Championship!
One of UKIP's MEP candidates was on the British Stratego team at the Stratego 2012 world championships. I had no idea there was a Stratego World Championship!
One of UKIP's MEP candidates was on the British Stratego team at the Stratego 2012 world championships. I had no idea there was a Stratego World Championship!
"As well as the evolving local Glasgow scandal of Celtic receiving cheap land deals from a Scottish Labour controlled Glasgow City Council and Greater Glasgow Health Board.
Celtic have been using that land as security to obtain cheap interest rate loans from the Labour riddled Co-operative Bank, most likely through former Chairman John Reid and Director Brian Wilson, both Labour party heavyweights. Now that’s what you call doubling up on corrupt leverage."
That said, the NE voters were unpersuaded - I think the problem was that they saw it as an EXTRA layer of government rater than genuinely devolved government.
As one account I read had it the NE assembly involved moving power upwards to the regional assembly from the local councils, rather than downwards from Whitehall to the region.
That's centralisation, rather than devolution. That, and the obvious fact that Labour were only interested in creating a regional assembly where they thought they would be in control - rather than to regions in the south - would be big reasons why that supposed devolution was fortunate to be rejected.
BBC guy spinning that Labour will get better rates on its loan at the Unity Bank than the Co-Op bank.
I'm pretty sure the the Co op are the happier of the two - for Labour its not a big deal other than they are further in hock to the unions. What I don't understand is why they don't kill the Labour brand, merge all the big unions into one and they run candidates ?
BBC guy spinning that Labour will get better rates on its loan at the Unity Bank than the Co-Op bank.
That may well be true - and are also much less likely to have the loan called in.....I suspect the Coop bank's American owners are happy with this too.....
If Labour could only get 29% in the local elections last year, I struggle to see them getting above 25-26% in these elections. Presumably UKIP should beat that, unless the rogue Eurosceptic party really siphons off votes like Mike Smithson has suggested.
I'm more interested to see the gap between the Tories and Labour in these elections (if indeed there is a gap). There's been quite a surprisingly big contrast between parliamentary by-elections and local council elections in this parliament. The Tories' performance in byelections has really been terrible, often much worse than their performance in opinion polls would indicate. OTOH, their performance in council elections has been pretty respectable and better than the opinion polls -- even in 2012, in the wake of the Omnishambles Budget, Labour weren't ahead of them by that much in the council elections that year. I wonder if the European elections will lean more towards a typical byelection or a typical council election.
Reflecting on the effectiveness of the multi-party "Better Together" campaign,Gordon Brown has decided to change course and is right to do so.The Tory and LibDem votes for "no" are already banked.It is those Scottish people who regularly vote Labour who hold the balance and Brown is still well respected figure to whom people are prepared to listen.There will be some Tories who will still want him hung,drawn and quartered but who would be well-advised to back off,if they believe in the union.That has to be the message to Tory ministers too.If you want to win to keep the union, stay south of Watford,where you belong and are safer anyway. The other question mark has to be on the performance of Alistair Darling,who was being proposed on PB a while back for shadow chancellor.He doesn't look the "safe pair of hands" he is presumed to be.It's hard to accuse of him of being inspirational either. A lot may not like it but the unionist campaign is now led by Gordon Brown.As such,it has a better chance of winning.
One of UKIP's MEP candidates was on the British Stratego team at the Stratego 2012 world championships. I had no idea there was a Stratego World Championship!
It was usually the dusty box under Mousetrap, Monopoly, and Connect 4 that no-one wanted to play.
Totally disagree - I used to play L'Attaque (the French predecessor to Stratego), Dover Patrol and Tri-Tactics the whole time.
But there again I am still a fan of Cathedral, which is one of the sneakiest games ever devised. Who ever through town planning could get that confrontational?
Did anyone try to split Scotland into Lowlands, Highlands, and Islands? Of course not.
Your Unionist mates are never done flying a 'Shetland, Orkney & Borders should remain in the UK' kite.
Especially as it wouldn't be the UK anyway, which would have disappeared. But England, W & NI. One could just as logically invite the Isle of Wight to become part of Scotland.
Carnyx, I think of you as being the smart nationalist. Please tell me you don't really believe this tripe. The United Kingdom was formed from the union of the Kingdom of Great Britain with the Kingdom of Ireland. The fact that part of the Kingdom of Great Britain leaves wouldn't end the UK any more than when part of the Kingdom of Ireland left. If Scotland gets independence, it wouldn't happen from a repeal of the Act of Union 1707. It would be from a new Act that gets passed releasing Scotland as a sovereign state, while the UK would still continue to exist.
I can see where you are coming from, but it is important to bear in mind that that is value laden terminology. To state that the UK will still persist under that name implies that it is the continuing state and Scotland will be a de novo state. Hence best to avoid using that term for now. EWNI is neutral and not value laden in that sense (though I accept that it can be seen as value laden in the sense that it is seen by some as a downgrade.)
But that's exactly what would happen. We have a direct example in the creation of the Irish Free State. The UK continued (with exactly the same name, until they chose to alter it six years later), and was the successor state under international law, while Ireland became a new state in international law. This isn't a matter of terminology, it's a legal thing. All the existing treaties would continue to be held by the UK, and Scotland would have to create new ones.
Your views duly taken. And, in terms of international treaties, I have no doubt that rUK would like to keep them, etc., and that practical politics will make that likely (but not completely certain). However I genuinely hesitate to take that particular example as a precedent for Scottish independence, simply because of the obvious differences in how independence was achieved, and for that matter in how the original union was achieved. Anyway we will see how things go ...
''their performance in council elections has been pretty respectable and better than the opinion polls -- even in 2012, in the wake of the Omnishambles Budget, Labour weren't ahead of them by that much in the council elections that year.''
It is really that surprising? Conservative councils are more likely to freeze your council tax and empty your bins once a week than labour ones.
Why UKIP MEP's voted against the EU Elephant directive
" UKIP MEPs do not recognise the democratic legitimacy of the European Union or any of its institutions to legislate over the British people. The only Parliament they recognise with a legitimate right to legislate over the British people is their own properly constituted and democratically elected national Parliament. In the European Parliament UKIP MEPs oppose all legislation, and non-legislative reports, resolutions, motions or proposals in any form that call for legislation over the British people or endorse the legitimacy of the European Union and its institutions.
In other words, the UKIP MEPs were simply resisting yet another EU power grab."
The other question mark has to be on the performance of Alistair Darling,who was being proposed on PB a while back for shadow chancellor.He doesn't look the "safe pair of hands" he is presumed to be.It's hard to accuse of him of being inspirational either.
Darling's chief qualities have always been that he is not Gordon Brown or Ed Balls, and can at least command his brief to the extent of remaining in post for a longer period than Alan Johnson.
In the current field of Labour MPs that is plenty good enough to recommend him for the role of Shadow Chancellor.
Have your own opinion, rather than spamming the site with other people's drivel day after tedious day.
The last time ScottP gave us an original opinion of his own here it was to tell us that there would be a Scottish Conservative surge in the 2010 General Election. It is therefore with good reason he now spends his days spamming the site with other peoples tweets rather than opinions and ideas of his own. Did Cameron have Scott in mind when he said "Too many tweets make a ...." ?
Yougov Welsh euro poll Labour 39% UKIP 20% Conservatives 18% Pc 11% Libdems 7% Converts to 2 lab seats 1 UKIP 1 Conservative Pc lose 1
That's Lab+19 points, Con -3, PC -7, LD -4, UKIP +7. Others last time included 5% each for Greens and BNP.
From posts here one gets the impression for Tories that Labour isn't seen as doing well in Wales. Doubling their vote seems quite good progress. The Plaid figure looks grim, as bad as the LibDems in terms of proportionate lost share. UKIP figure is fair but not fantastic, perhaps because they did quite well last time in Wales - there is some evidence of a "ceiling" effect.
Reflecting on the effectiveness of the multi-party "Better Together" campaign,Gordon Brown has decided to change course and is right to do so.The Tory and LibDem votes for "no" are already banked.It is those Scottish people who regularly vote Labour who hold the balance and Brown is still well respected figure to whom people are prepared to listen.There will be some Tories who will still want him hung,drawn and quartered but who would be well-advised to back off,if they believe in the union.That has to be the message to Tory ministers too.If you want to win to keep the union, stay south of Watford,where you belong and are safer anyway. The other question mark has to be on the performance of Alistair Darling,who was being proposed on PB a while back for shadow chancellor.He doesn't look the "safe pair of hands" he is presumed to be.It's hard to accuse of him of being inspirational either. A lot may not like it but the unionist campaign is now led by Gordon Brown.As such,it has a better chance of winning.
Don't let the dear departed tim hear you dissing his badger idol...
In Clegg's speech. We can also remember Socrates three methods for arguing like a Europhile:
(1) Talk in high level wooly terms
Britain is always at its best when we are open, outward-facing and engaged, a leader on the world stage.
(2) Give credit to the EU for things that would happen anyway.
We are IN for jobs. For the millions of businesses who rely on trade with our neighbours.
(3) If in doubt, smear your opponents as reactionary bigots.
If not us, who? The Labour Party? The Conservatives? Where are they? What are they doing to stop the populists and the xenophobes?
(4) Say 'No one cares about Europe' anyway
(5) Try and manufacture hypocrisy - I.e Farage employing his wife and Brits living in Spain - to muddy the waters and stifle any real debate on how the EU prevents us from setting our own employment and immigration policy
I'd rather let Scotland go then break up England and end up with the sort of paralysed federal mess that Germany has, which prevents the country from ever acting in a concerted way internationally.
Germany did act in a concerted way internationally, in 1939-45. I'm not sure there is a consensus that it was a good idea. Even with less drastic examples, there's a lot to be said for a system that restrains countries from acting too energetically on their own.
The problem with British MPs is not that they are too rowdy, but that they are too tame
"Having grown up in politics, Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne seem incapable of thinking beyond it. Thus the tricksiness of their policies—the token cap on welfare spending, designed to embarrass Labour; the chimeric tax cuts, which leave few people better off. If this approach achieves short-term political hits, it does not tell sceptical voters they are led by high-minded people.
And this damaging fixation with tradecraft is self-perpetuating—because the Tory leaders, even more than their rivals, promote colleagues with a similar approach. Mr Osborne has built a network of such protégées—he calls them “the club”—including Matthew Hancock, Nicky Morgan and Sajid Javid, Ms Miller’s successor. Derided by jealous colleagues as lackeys, these rising stars are equally defined by their Osborne-ite view of politics as a game clever people play. More obviously talented, yet less biddable, Tories—including Rory Stewart, Margot James and Nadhim Zahawi—languish outside the club. That is self-defeating. To enthuse voters, party leaders need to promote engaging representatives. The fact that Britain’s few charismatic politicians—Mr Johnson, Mr Farage and the Scottish nationalist leader Alex Salmond—are outside Parliament is symptomatic of this failure"
If you have different areas of policy for the UK and national levels, there's absolutely no reason why federalism can't work with England as a whole.
On a theoretical level, no. On a practical level, the idea of an English parliament with 500 MPs or so would just look too much like the existing Westminster and would be a rival rather than a complement to it, particularly when it had a different political leadership. If Boris, as political head of a city of 8 million and commanding relatively few real powers, is seen as a rival to Cameron, how much more so would the political leader of 50 million be, when overseeing very real powers (if devolved as per Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland)?
In any case, I think that too much power is centralised in London and it would be a good thing for the regions to take more responsibility for their own affairs. I accept that not all regions have the same strength of identity but that's not all that necessary.
Agree with all of that. (Come to that, it's good to see a consensus between David Herdson and John Prescott.) That said, the NE voters were unpersuaded - I think the problem was that they saw it as an EXTRA layer of government rater than genuinely devolved government.
Prescott's plans were cart-before-horse, which is why they were rejected: there was a referendum based on a new body with no defined powers. Had a mirror of Wales or Scotland been on offer, there might have been a different response. Indeed, I went to a 'Yorkshire Says No' event at about the time of the vote in the North East when Yorkshire was next on Prezza's list and the speaker (against) specifically said that there'd be a much stronger case for it if it were to have much stronger powers.
And now, I really am off for a ride.
I do not want England carved up into a series of regions. I would vote against any proposal for English regional assemblies at either a national or local (south east) level.
The other question mark has to be on the performance of Alistair Darling,who was being proposed on PB a while back for shadow chancellor.He doesn't look the "safe pair of hands" he is presumed to be.It's hard to accuse of him of being inspirational either.
Darling's chief qualities have always been that he is not Gordon Brown or Ed Balls, and can at least command his brief to the extent of remaining in post for a longer period than Alan Johnson.
Was it just Darling and Brown who were ever present in Cabinet from 1997 to 2010?
The problem with British MPs is not that they are too rowdy, but that they are too tame
"Having grown up in politics, Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne seem incapable of thinking beyond it. Thus the tricksiness of their policies—the token cap on welfare spending, designed to embarrass Labour; the chimeric tax cuts, which leave few people better off. If this approach achieves short-term political hits, it does not tell sceptical voters they are led by high-minded people.
And this damaging fixation with tradecraft is self-perpetuating—because the Tory leaders, even more than their rivals, promote colleagues with a similar approach. Mr Osborne has built a network of such protégées—he calls them “the club”—including Matthew Hancock, Nicky Morgan and Sajid Javid, Ms Miller’s successor. Derided by jealous colleagues as lackeys, these rising stars are equally defined by their Osborne-ite view of politics as a game clever people play. More obviously talented, yet less biddable, Tories—including Rory Stewart, Margot James and Nadhim Zahawi—languish outside the club. That is self-defeating. To enthuse voters, party leaders need to promote engaging representatives. The fact that Britain’s few charismatic politicians—Mr Johnson, Mr Farage and the Scottish nationalist leader Alex Salmond—are outside Parliament is symptomatic of this failure"
In Clegg's speech. We can also remember Socrates three methods for arguing like a Europhile:
(1) Talk in high level wooly terms
Britain is always at its best when we are open, outward-facing and engaged, a leader on the world stage.
(2) Give credit to the EU for things that would happen anyway.
We are IN for jobs. For the millions of businesses who rely on trade with our neighbours.
(3) If in doubt, smear your opponents as reactionary bigots.
If not us, who? The Labour Party? The Conservatives? Where are they? What are they doing to stop the populists and the xenophobes?
(4) Say 'No one cares about Europe' anyway
(5) Try and manufacture hypocrisy - I.e Farage employing his wife and Brits living in Spain - to muddy the waters and stifle any real debate on how the EU prevents us from setting our own employment and immigration policy
Think my fav is when they say "but its a two way thing.. we can go there as well"
followed by silence when the question of how many Brits got to work in Eastern Europe and vice versa
Is there anywhere in EU where more Brits go to work than come here?
BBC guy spinning that Labour will get better rates on its loan at the Unity Bank than the Co-Op bank.
I'm pretty sure the the Co op are the happier of the two - for Labour its not a big deal other than they are further in hock to the unions. What I don't understand is why they don't kill the Labour brand, merge all the big unions into one and they run candidates ?
Comin' over 'ere, takin' our flats in Spain...er, wait a minute.
What actually is the point of electing a UKIP MEP? There is a very good chance he'll do nothing but podge his secretary, fiddle his expenses and go to jail. What have they accomplished in the last 5 years? Why is there no official Opposition in the European parliament?
I would of thought so. But if the Electoral Commission bods are waving it through, UKIP would presumably have to file a civil case. They're a small organisation, perhaps they just can't cope with that during an election campaign?
Yougov Welsh euro poll Labour 39% UKIP 20% Conservatives 18% Pc 11% Libdems 7% Converts to 2 lab seats 1 UKIP 1 Conservative Pc lose 1
That's Lab+19 points, Con -3, PC -7, LD -4, UKIP +7. Others last time included 5% each for Greens and BNP.
UKIP figure is fair but not fantastic, perhaps because they did quite well last time in Wales - there is some evidence of a "ceiling" effect.
UKIP are moving from 4th in 2009 to 2nd in 2014. That's pretty good.
"The party in Wales which perhaps has the most positive news to draw from this poll is UKIP. Though their support levels in Wales continue to lag behind those in England, UKIP have become a significant force in Welsh party politics."
Reflecting on the effectiveness of the multi-party "Better Together" campaign,Gordon Brown has decided to change course and is right to do so.The Tory and LibDem votes for "no" are already banked.It is those Scottish people who regularly vote Labour who hold the balance and Brown is still well respected figure to whom people are prepared to listen.There will be some Tories who will still want him hung,drawn and quartered but who would be well-advised to back off,if they believe in the union.That has to be the message to Tory ministers too.If you want to win to keep the union, stay south of Watford,where you belong and are safer anyway. The other question mark has to be on the performance of Alistair Darling,who was being proposed on PB a while back for shadow chancellor.He doesn't look the "safe pair of hands" he is presumed to be.It's hard to accuse of him of being inspirational either. A lot may not like it but the unionist campaign is now led by Gordon Brown.As such,it has a better chance of winning.
Don't let the dear departed tim hear you dissing his badger idol...
He might leap to Al's defence using one of his half dozen pseudonyms.
As a 100% bolted on political geek I can say I have absolutely no idea how one gets to be a new party put on a ballot paper.
What's to stop Ladour/Labovr/Comservative (and Union, etc)/Conseruative etc?
I thought that was the Electoral Commission's job, but it seems not.
All new parties have to register with the Electoral Commission with details of party name , sub names ( maximum of 10 ) and emblems . Any objections by UKIp to Nattrass's Party could and should have been made in 2012 .
Comments
Now, work.
On a further point, a huge swathe of central, south and east England is economically integrated and effectively functions as one economy. It would be stupid to split this up just so we can say we have devolved regions.
Mr G's response was, alas, predictable and silly, if amusing ( I am amazed that there are any dole queues in Scotland because apparently they contain people who can design warships, run complicated procurement programmes, and now we discover, design, procure and implement mission critical IT systems in 18 months - very clever people on the dole in Scotland).
On the political level I find it gob-smacking just how little thought the SNP seem to have put into how to set up a new state and what will be required. Independence has been the reason for its existence for donkey's years yet they seem to have no plans to deal with what will be required if they achieve a yes vote. The idea seems to be that Anglo-Scottish government will carry on in exactly the same way as now, except for the bits that Scotland wants to change, bizarre, very naive and/or arrogant to the point of stupidity.
If there is a yes vote then I fear lots of Scots are going to be very upset when the reality hits home. Scottish politicians will no doubt blame the English (why change a winning formula). I begin to understand Mr. Brooke's warning of half a century of grief ahead.
http://party.coop/2012/07/09/ed-miliband-mp-sets-out-his-banking-reform-plans-at-the-co-operative-bank-hq/
Looked like bullshit, sounded like bullshit, and both Eds have been remarkably silent about the benefits of the Co-Op model since 2012.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0043/00434502.pdf
As you can see if you read the paper the resources to administer pensions in an independent Scotland already exist. There will be no need for new systems.
*checks posts*
Oh, no I didn't. Sorry the point of your reply was?
Dan @DanDanMcG 15h
UKIP wanted to ban this 1983 photograph of Nigel Farage. So...here it is. pic.twitter.com/9B7tuexZ3o
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/labour-hits-back-nigel-farage-7026195
Over 1,200 turned up to Farage public meeting last night. Something incredible is going on out there. http://tiny.cc/umhtex
http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0423/610542-adams-mcguinness/
At what point is it better to admit what everyone knows anyway and end the charade of claiming that Gerry was never in the IRA and Martin left when he was young? Because lying about it all the time cant do much for the credibility of their press people.
The reality is that an Independent Scotland will need to make larger cuts in public spending than are forecast for the UK as a whole (which are frightening enough). They will not have the credit record, they have a worse deficit per head of population, they have a larger public sector with more entitled to an index linked unfunded pension and north sea oil revenue has fallen off a cliff.
So an independent Scotland will need to make some hard choices, not empty a sweetie jar. I see nothing about these kinds of choices in that paper.
They can't really understand that the majority of people in England do not give a single thought in a year to Scotland unlike their totally besotted selves and if anything, they cannot believe that the English would quite like to be rid of Scotland, the Barnett Formula and the continuous winge from the SNP.
Then for all the so called Common Sense that the English will allow Salmond to dictate the terms of the divorce - well, he can walk on water can't he, turn water into whisky and on the 21st September he will rise from the dead and promise another referendum.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27142340
Puzzled by the idea that earnings > inflation= Osborne out of trouble. Attached graph shows how weak recovery will be pic.twitter.com/J7UlUZcVPF
The European Commission has decided not to introduce regulations that would have made private pensions cheaper to operate across international borders.
In a surprise move, the Commission has decided to stick to the current regulations.
If Scotland votes for independence in September, many private pension schemes would become cross-border schemes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26771173
Why should we trust what they say on resources either?
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl/i-need-to-do-all-i-can-for-hearts-alex-salmond-1-3377777
Why not for Rangers ?
They used to have the same sponsors, why not the same bank?
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2514682/Co-op-Bank-slammed-cheap-loans-Celtic-Football-Club.html
Joanne Segars, chief executive of the National Association of Pension Funds, said: "Today's announcement of a new EU pensions directive has major implications for pension schemes as part of the debate on independence for Scotland.
"The knock-on effect of this is that schemes with members both north and south of the border would become much more expensive to run if Scotland were to vote for independence."
But as you say - it will cause problems both sides of the border......that'll ease negotiations......
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10782671/Independent-Scotland-has-parallels-with-Iceland-warns-SandP.html#disqus_thread
But yes you are right of course, they will need to do all that. I hope today's YES generation can be relied on to be selfless in suffering more now so that future generations will thrive as an independent nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Arnott#Personal_life
http://footballtaxhavens.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/celtic-fc-getting-sucked-into-the-labour-party-co-operative-bank-scandal/
"As well as the evolving local Glasgow scandal of Celtic receiving cheap land deals from a Scottish Labour controlled Glasgow City Council and Greater Glasgow Health Board.
Celtic have been using that land as security to obtain cheap interest rate loans from the Labour riddled Co-operative Bank, most likely through former Chairman John Reid and Director Brian Wilson, both Labour party heavyweights. Now that’s what you call doubling up on corrupt leverage."
Time to drop the silly pretence ?
I'm more interested to see the gap between the Tories and Labour in these elections (if indeed there is a gap). There's been quite a surprisingly big contrast between parliamentary by-elections and local council elections in this parliament. The Tories' performance in byelections has really been terrible, often much worse than their performance in opinion polls would indicate. OTOH, their performance in council elections has been pretty respectable and better than the opinion polls -- even in 2012, in the wake of the Omnishambles Budget, Labour weren't ahead of them by that much in the council elections that year. I wonder if the European elections will lean more towards a typical byelection or a typical council election.
The other question mark has to be on the performance of Alistair Darling,who was being proposed on PB a while back for shadow chancellor.He doesn't look the "safe pair of hands" he is presumed to be.It's hard to accuse of him of being inspirational either.
A lot may not like it but the unionist campaign is now led by Gordon Brown.As such,it has a better chance of winning.
But there again I am still a fan of Cathedral, which is one of the sneakiest games ever devised. Who ever through town planning could get that confrontational?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_(board_game)
It is really that surprising? Conservative councils are more likely to freeze your council tax and empty your bins once a week than labour ones.
" UKIP MEPs do not recognise the democratic legitimacy of the European Union or
any of its institutions to legislate over the British people. The only Parliament they
recognise with a legitimate right to legislate over the British people is their own properly constituted and democratically elected national Parliament.
In the European Parliament UKIP MEPs oppose all legislation, and non-legislative reports, resolutions, motions or proposals in any form that call for legislation over the British people or endorse the legitimacy of the European Union and its institutions.
In other words, the UKIP MEPs were simply resisting yet another EU power grab."
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04/24/UKIP-not-just-racist-fruitcakes-but-elephant-murderers-too
In the current field of Labour MPs that is plenty good enough to recommend him for the role of Shadow Chancellor.
From posts here one gets the impression for Tories that Labour isn't seen as doing well in Wales. Doubling their vote seems quite good progress. The Plaid figure looks grim, as bad as the LibDems in terms of proportionate lost share. UKIP figure is fair but not fantastic, perhaps because they did quite well last time in Wales - there is some evidence of a "ceiling" effect.
(5) Try and manufacture hypocrisy - I.e Farage employing his wife and Brits living in Spain - to muddy the waters and stifle any real debate on how the EU prevents us from setting our own employment and immigration policy
http://www.ukip.org/ukip_chairman_steve_crowther_attacks_appalling_cynicism_of_bid_to_confuse_voters_by_rival_party_using_similar_name_and_slogan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)#Welsh_polls
"Having grown up in politics, Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne seem incapable of thinking beyond it. Thus the tricksiness of their policies—the token cap on welfare spending, designed to embarrass Labour; the chimeric tax cuts, which leave few people better off. If this approach achieves short-term political hits, it does not tell sceptical voters they are led by high-minded people.
And this damaging fixation with tradecraft is self-perpetuating—because the Tory leaders, even more than their rivals, promote colleagues with a similar approach. Mr Osborne has built a network of such protégées—he calls them “the club”—including Matthew Hancock, Nicky Morgan and Sajid Javid, Ms Miller’s successor. Derided by jealous colleagues as lackeys, these rising stars are equally defined by their Osborne-ite view of politics as a game clever people play. More obviously talented, yet less biddable, Tories—including Rory Stewart, Margot James and Nadhim Zahawi—languish outside the club. That is self-defeating. To enthuse voters, party leaders need to promote engaging representatives. The fact that Britain’s few charismatic politicians—Mr Johnson, Mr Farage and the Scottish nationalist leader Alex Salmond—are outside Parliament is symptomatic of this failure"
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21601015-problem-british-mps-not-they-are-too-rowdy-they-are-too-tame-hated?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/hatedbodypolitic
I think these comments relate to labour's performance in government in Wales rather than its performance at the polls.
And its performance in government, on its central plank issues, has been utterly lamentable.
followed by silence when the question of how many Brits got to work in Eastern Europe and vice versa
Is there anywhere in EU where more Brits go to work than come here?
Spain retirees possibly (ie Rich Brits spending lots of money there/not taking anyones job/providing employment)
What actually is the point of electing a UKIP MEP? There is a very good chance he'll do nothing but podge his secretary, fiddle his expenses and go to jail. What have they accomplished in the last 5 years? Why is there no official Opposition in the European parliament?
"The party in Wales which perhaps has the most positive news to draw from this poll is UKIP. Though their support levels in Wales continue to lag behind those in England, UKIP have become a significant force in Welsh party politics."
http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/2014/04/24/a-new-voting-intention-poll-in-wales/
As a 100% bolted on political geek I can say I have absolutely no idea how one gets to be a new party put on a ballot paper.
What's to stop Ladour/Labovr/Comservative (and Union, etc)/Conseruative etc?