When will the English start asking themselves whether they really want to stay in a political marriage with a partner who is only there for the money?
Isn't this the point that is being spectacularly missed. 300 years of history, peace and prosperity and it all comes down to the currency. The way the modern world is changing will work against nationalism but this loveless union is depressing. Perhaps a social democratic government that was less London centric might change things. I fear we're past the point of no return.
The fact that the SNP leadership has said nothing much will change with a Yes except things will get better indicates they see there's more to it than money. But sentimentality is no reason to stay together either. Whatever happens in September there will be big changes across the UK over the next few years. We should all welcome that.
Not sure what changes you mean. More powers for the Scottish parliament? That may be okay, but it only further unbalances the constitution. An English parliament would be hugely destabilising given its relative power, so regional assemblies would make more sense. Lots more questions, no obvious answers.
Exactly - the imbalance is unsustainable, so there'll be greater powers for Scotland and a new settlement for the rUK. It'll take a bit of time, but it'll happen.
Mr. Observer, carving England up in little regions is unacceptable. England's one land. Was Scotland sliced up into Islands, Highlands and Lowlands?
Of course not.
Carving up England is just a recipe for greater division and perhaps, ultimately, separation. That may sound unlikely, but consider how devolution was meant to kill nationalism stone dead and what it's instead led to.
@Financier - UK companies export less than companies from elsewhere in Europe. Our R&D investment is abysmal. Productivity is below average. That's just rank bad management.
Are our companies owned to export outside of Europe? The sole reason Nissan et al are here is to export to the European market. We have become remarkably foreign-owned. For a lot of global multinationals Britain provides free access to continental Europe. They aren't interested in exporting to China.
If you look at patent filings from UK companies in China it's pretty clear they don't see it as an important market. The comparison with most other northern European countries is stark - just as it is elsewhere in the world, sadly. It's all about decisions taken in British boardrooms. Short-termism rules OK.
The stock market ensures that I would have thought. There I have some sympathy. How do you make long term decisions when companies are owned the way they are? However, much of that sympathy is lost when you see executives paying themselves vast sums of money, second only to the US, for running their businesses in such an indifferent manner.
Spot on. Though at least in the US they do have a track record of investment in R&D and innovation. And just look at our productivity. Obviously, there are some great British companies and top class business leaders, but in the round we lag badly. That's no-one's fault but those who sit in Britain's corporate and banking boardrooms.
Got to sign off now, but Rolls Royce are one of the least well remunerated FTSE boards yet one of the best performing companies. Can't help feeling it says something.
(presumably that means that Senator Portman is less likely to be a VP pick, because that would mean that you would be wasting a potential chip that could be used in another state?)
I think there will probably be a deal for Scotland to use Pounds Sterling, but it may not be a currency union as such.
No, there won't be such a deal. There really won't be. Nobody can stop institutions and people using GBP for everyday transactions ("Fifteen tins of beans?" "Fiver OK?" "Yep") and that can happen with or without HMG/BOE consent. But once you start using it for a finance industry or government expenditure you run into all sorts of problems. Let's take a couple of examples.
A bank in an independent Dundee has an ATM. The ATM runs out of physical £5 and £10 notes. Where does it get new ones from? It can't be from the vaults because (due to fractional banking) it has way more assets and liabilities than petty cash. A rUK bank would get it from the BOE/Mint, exchanging its bits and bytes denoting its credit for physical paper. But a iScotland bank can't do that. Result? Dundee bank runs out of paper, bank run happens, ban collapses.
An iScotland government pays its employees in GBP. A momentary imbalance means money coming in is less than money going out. It can't meet payroll. The rUK government can just print more GBP, but the iScotland government can't do that. So it borrows from a banker outside iScotland, and - yes - the debt is in GBP. If taxes continue to exceed expenditure, this debt accelerates and eventually the iScotland government collapses.
Salmon's insistence that he can keep GBP without rUK consent is entirely fictional. Genuinely.
Scotland would have to take their share of the debt. If they did not do this, there is no way that the EU would allow them to become members.
It's not just the EU. Without rUK consent, it couldn't become part of the Commonwealth (i.e. it couldn't send delegates to a CHOGM without an invite). If it refuses to take its share of the debt, it couldn't join the IMF (like, hello!). That's not just independence, it's living in the off-world colonies.
I just can't see that the YES campaign will be able to answer the questions that would satisfy most people.
As I have argued on these pages, Salmond genuinely does not know how to build a country. His insistence that he can keep GBP demonstrates this. The Irish worked out how to build a country after a war of independence and in the teeth of a civil war, and pulled it off. Salmond, in the midst of peace and plenty, got even the simple things wrong. How many times does he have to mess up before SNP realise he's just not competent on this issue?
I suspect Salmond knows the only real, long-term option for an independent Scotland is the Euro, but he dare not tell Scot's that until after the referendum?
Yep, those Midwest Blue Collar white voters will be the key again in 2016. Need a candidate that appeals more than Romney did to them, won't be hard to do that. Bigger problem is campaign donations from big business handicapping them from running on immigration.
Rand Paul getting the antiwar vote with a VP pick with a strong record on immigration/affirmative action (Steve King?) could be a winning combination.
Scotland can of course set up their own currency and call it the Pound if they wish (you can call your currency anything you want afterall
This is true. iScotland could set up a Scottish Pound (SCP?), create a central Bank of Scotland as a central bank, peg it to GBP for 6-24 months to allow a changeover, then let it float freely. Easy-peasy. Latvia did exactly that when it detached from the roublezone.
So why isn't Salmond recommending exactly that? Because Salmond does not know how to build a country.
I suspect Salmond knows the only real, long-term option for an independent Scotland is the Euro, but he dare not tell Scot's that until after the referendum?
But, Mr. Gin there are rules governing what a county has to do to be allowed into the Euro, I can't see them being waived to suit Scotland (especially given what happened the last time said rules were ignored in favour of political convenience). So Scotland could not go into the Euro on day one anymore than they could go into the EU.
I like a nice bit of Baroque as much as the next man, especially when I am studying or writing and I agree Haydn can be sublime. However, the idea that one can be over exposed to Mozart is crackers.
On the subject of Baroque music, when they were building the Voyager spacecraft which is to go outside the solar system, they decided to load it with images and tapes to show any aline finder what human civilisation is like. When they were deciding what should be put on board someone suggested music by J.S. Bach. The suggestion was turned down because we didn't want to show off.
Yep, those Midwest Blue Collar white voters will be the key again in 2016. Need a candidate that appeals more than Romney did to them, won't be hard to do that. Bigger problem is campaign donations from big business handicapping them from running on immigration.
Rand Paul getting the antiwar vote with a VP pick with a strong record on immigration/affirmative action (Steve King?) could be a winning combination.
Glad you think Rand Paul has a chance for the GOP nomination. I'm on at 50/1 in a bet placed in November 2012.
@Financier - UK companies export less than companies from elsewhere in Europe. Our R&D investment is abysmal. Productivity is below average. That's just rank bad management.
Are our companies owned to export outside of Europe? The sole reason Nissan et al are here is to export to the European market. We have become remarkably foreign-owned. For a lot of global multinationals Britain provides free access to continental Europe. They aren't interested in exporting to China.
If you look at patent filings from UK companies in China it's pretty clear they don't see it as an important market. The comparison with most other northern European countries is stark - just as it is elsewhere in the world, sadly. It's all about decisions taken in British boardrooms. Short-termism rules OK.
The stock market ensures that I would have thought. There I have some sympathy. How do you make long term decisions when companies are owned the way they are? However, much of that sympathy is lost when you see executives paying themselves vast sums of money, second only to the US, for running their businesses in such an indifferent manner.
Spot on. Though at least in the US they do have a track record of investment in R&D and innovation. And just look at our productivity. Obviously, there are some great British companies and top class business leaders, but in the round we lag badly. That's no-one's fault but those who sit in Britain's corporate and banking boardrooms.
Spot on again, Mr Observer, but how do we change the situation? I would have thought that the answer must lie in corporate governance and the way the risks and rewards are structured for senior executives, but God knows how you do it. This is the sort of issue that people like Charles, gent of this parish, should be all over.
I like a nice bit of Baroque as much as the next man, especially when I am studying or writing and I agree Haydn can be sublime. However, the idea that one can be over exposed to Mozart is crackers.
On the subject of Baroque music, when they were building the Voyager spacecraft which is to go outside the solar system, they decided to load it with images and tapes to show any aline finder what human civilisation is like. When they were deciding what should be put on board someone suggested music by J.S. Bach. The suggestion was turned down because we didn't want to show off.
The problem is - and it may be my problem, not the music per se - is that it is sampled so much in adverts and lifts and telephone answer services that I find those parts of his music distracting. So you might be enjoying a perfectly good opera, and then something turns up that reminds you of the last time that you called British Gas - which breaks the pleasant mood somewhat.
If you have come up with a way to deal with associations like this, you could make a fortune!
@FraserNelson: Salmond’s suggestion that Scotland is more predisposed towards ‘social justice’ than England is absurd and repellent: http://t.co/DOSzyRoezl
@Financier - UK companies export less than companies from elsewhere in Europe. Our R&D investment is abysmal. Productivity is below average. That's just rank bad management.
Are our companies owned to export outside of Europe? The sole reason Nissan et al are here is to export to the European market. We have become remarkably foreign-owned. For a lot of global multinationals Britain provides free access to continental Europe. They aren't interested in exporting to China.
If you look at patent filings from UK companies in China it's pretty clear they don't see it as an important market. The comparison with most other northern European countries is stark - just as it is elsewhere in the world, sadly. It's all about decisions taken in British boardrooms. Short-termism rules OK.
The stock market ensures that I would have thought. There I have some sympathy. How do you make long term decisions when companies are owned the way they are? However, much of that sympathy is lost when you see executives paying themselves vast sums of money, second only to the US, for running their businesses in such an indifferent manner.
Spot on. Though at least in the US they do have a track record of investment in R&D and innovation. And just look at our productivity. Obviously, there are some great British companies and top class business leaders, but in the round we lag badly. That's no-one's fault but those who sit in Britain's corporate and banking boardrooms.
Got to sign off now, but Rolls Royce are one of the least well remunerated FTSE boards yet one of the best performing companies. Can't help feeling it says something.
Mr. Booth, I posted on here the other day the results of some recent research done in the USA which showed there was absolutely no correlation between a company's performance and the pay of its chief executive. I am sure the situation in the UK is no different. The idea that companies must pay huge packages for top talent is tosh.
Given the corporate governance rules in this country I can see no way that the situation will be changed without government action, not least because the same argument has leaked into the Civil Service and Local Government and is used there to justify ridiculously high salaries.
Charles/Falseflag Christie/Rubio is my tip for GOP ticket, maybe against Clinton-Castro. The Dems are choosing from Columbus, Philadelphia, Brooklyn and Phoenix for their convention
Spot on. Though at least in the US they do have a track record of investment in R&D and innovation. And just look at our productivity. Obviously, there are some great British companies and top class business leaders, but in the round we lag badly. That's no-one's fault but those who sit in Britain's corporate and banking boardrooms.
Spot on again, Mr Observer, but how do we change the situation? I would have thought that the answer must lie in corporate governance and the way the risks and rewards are structured for senior executives, but God knows how you do it. This is the sort of issue that people like Charles, gent of this parish, should be all over.
I wish I had a solution to the principal-agent problem! It would be worth a Nobel Prize (in economics, I hasten to add...)
The basic problem is one of globalisation: the reality is that firms have outgrown the capacity of shareholders to control the directors, while the directors don't have the knowledge to question the management and (in reality) very few managers make that much of a difference. Add to this the conservative/risk-adverse way in which headhunters and search committees nominate management and you have a relatively small group of individuals who are deemed "capable" of running big companies - who are then in a position to demand "star" wages which are often undeserved.
In my view, the solution is smaller, privately owned companies. It's best when these companies are owned by families or over multiple generations because that creates a moral incentive to take a long-term perspective. (This is why, for instance, the Mittelstand does well). But, there again, I would say that, wouldn't I!
This is a good article I came across while looking for Graef Crystal's website (wikipedia.org/wiki/Graef_Crystal) - but unfortunately he seems to have taken it down. Worth reading his stuff though.
I like a nice bit of Baroque as much as the next man, especially when I am studying or writing and I agree Haydn can be sublime. However, the idea that one can be over exposed to Mozart is crackers.
On the subject of Baroque music, when they were building the Voyager spacecraft which is to go outside the solar system, they decided to load it with images and tapes to show any aline finder what human civilisation is like. When they were deciding what should be put on board someone suggested music by J.S. Bach. The suggestion was turned down because we didn't want to show off.
The problem is - and it may be my problem, not the music per se - is that it is sampled so much in adverts and lifts and telephone answer services that I find those parts of his music distracting. So you might be enjoying a perfectly good opera, and then something turns up that reminds you of the last time that you called British Gas - which breaks the pleasant mood somewhat.
If you have come up with a way to deal with associations like this, you could make a fortune!
I obviously have developed a way of not making those associations when it comes to Mozart because I don't have them. How I have done that I don't know, I'll have to think about it and see if I can find away of marketing it. That said, I still after all these years can't hear The Flower Duet without thinking immediately of British Airways (that link might be a bit before your time).
@Financier - UK companies export less than companies from elsewhere in Europe. Our R&D investment is abysmal. Productivity is below average. That's just rank bad management.
Are our companies owned to export outside of Europe? The sole reason Nissan et al are here is to export to the European market. We have become remarkably foreign-owned. For a lot of global multinationals Britain provides free access to continental Europe. They aren't interested in exporting to China.
If
The
Spot on.
Spot on again, Mr Observer, but how do we change the situation? I would have thought that the answer must lie in corporate governance and the way the risks and rewards are structured for senior executives, but God knows how you do it. This is the sort of issue that people like Charles, gent of this parish, should be all over.
Quite a lot of nonsense being spouted here. To listen to pb-ers, you'd think the British economy was a unique basket-case.
It's still the seventh or eighth biggest economy in the world, is about to overtake France again, has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the EU and is growing faster than Germany, France, Italy, Holland or Spain (often quite a lot faster).
We also have lots of world class companies, our capital is maybe the world's greatest city (and a global financial powerhouse) , unlike the rest of the EU we have some of the world's best universities, we are the third most popular nation on earth, and our "soft cultural influence" is arguably the greatest in the world.
What we are slightly crap at is certain kinds of manufacturing and exporting (that and football), but given that China and India, followed by Indonesia and Brazil, will soon be able to manufacture everything much much cheaper than anyone else, I'm not sure manufacturing is such a great place for a modern western nation to concentrate its efforts.
Enough of the self-abuse. We're doing OK.
Agreed. And although we maybe crap at producing football players, the Premier League is a world-renowned brand.
both of which specifically infected Britain and America in the 1980s guarantees short termism as not operating to maximize short term profits allowed takeover and asset stripping.
@Financier - UK companies export less than companies from elsewhere in Europe. Our R&D investment is abysmal. Productivity is below average. That's just rank bad management.
Are our companies owned to export outside of Europe? The sole reason Nissan et al are here is to export to the European market. We have become remarkably foreign-owned. For a lot of global multinationals Britain provides free access to continental Europe. They aren't interested in exporting to China.
If
The
Spot on.
Spot on again, Mr Observer, but how do we change the situation? I would have thought that the answer must lie in corporate governance and the way the risks and rewards are structured for senior executives, but God knows how you do it. This is the sort of issue that people like Charles, gent of this parish, should be all over.
Quite a lot of nonsense being spouted here. To listen to pb-ers, you'd think the British economy was a unique basket-case.
Enough of the self-abuse. We're doing OK.
Agreed. And although we maybe crap at producing football players, the Premier League is a world-renowned brand.
We're not even THAT bad at manufacturing.
The Nissan plant in Sunderland now produces more cars.... than the whole of Italy.
Good point, Sean. And, of course, Nissan built their cars here to get access to the EU market. How many Japanese car plants are there in Norway, Switzerland or the other EEA states?
@FraserNelson: Salmond’s suggestion that Scotland is more predisposed towards ‘social justice’ than England is absurd and repellent: http://t.co/DOSzyRoezl
It might seem that way on the face of it but when you look at all the lists of good things by country there is a very consistent pattern of the small&sensible countries dominating the top 20 along with a few of the big&sensible countries (usually only the most sensible) so i think being small may be a factor in it somehow for some reason.
Scotland can of course set up their own currency and call it the Pound if they wish (you can call your currency anything you want afterall
This is true. iScotland could set up a Scottish Pound (SCP?), create a central Bank of Scotland as a central bank, peg it to GBP for 6-24 months to allow a changeover, then let it float freely. Easy-peasy. Latvia did exactly that when it detached from the roublezone.
So why isn't Salmond recommending exactly that? Because Salmond does not know how to build a country.
And Latvia promptly joined the Euro a few years later...
Really? We are doing OK as a nation? That £100bn a year deficit is nothing to worry about? The fact that we have run a trade deficit every year since God knows when is OK? The fact that the UK's biggest export is our wealth is OK? Golly, Mr T, maybe you should spend some more time in the UK but away from Primrose Hill.
Scotland can of course set up their own currency and call it the Pound if they wish (you can call your currency anything you want afterall
This is true. iScotland could set up a Scottish Pound (SCP?), create a central Bank of Scotland as a central bank, peg it to GBP for 6-24 months to allow a changeover, then let it float freely. Easy-peasy. Latvia did exactly that when it detached from the roublezone.
So why isn't Salmond recommending exactly that? Because Salmond does not know how to build a country.
And Lativia promptly joined the Euro a few years later...
Wonder what the infamous Latvian Homphobes made of it all?
@Financier - UK companies export less than companies from elsewhere in Europe. Our R&D investment is abysmal. Productivity is below average. That's just rank bad management.
Are our companies owned to export outside of Europe? The sole reason Nissan et al are here is to export to the European market. We have become remarkably foreign-owned. For a lot of global multinationals Britain provides free access to continental Europe. They aren't interested in exporting to China.
If
The
Spot on.
Spot on again, Mr Observer, but how do we change the situation? I would have thought that the answer must lie in corporate governance and the way the risks and rewards are structured for senior executives, but God knows how you do it. This is the sort of issue that people like Charles, gent of this parish, should be all over.
Quite a lot of nonsense being spouted here. To listen to pb-ers, you'd think the British economy was a unique basket-case.
It's still the seventh or eighth biggest economy in the world, is about to overtake France again, has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the EU and is growing faster than Germany, France, Italy, Holland or Spain (often quite a lot faster).
We also have lots of world class companies, our capital is maybe the world's greatest city (and a global financial powerhouse) , unlike the rest of the EU we have some of the world's best universities, we are the third most popular nation on earth, and our "soft cultural influence" is arguably the greatest in the world.
What we are slightly crap at is certain kinds of manufacturing and exporting (that and football), but given that China and India, followed by Indonesia and Brazil, will soon be able to manufacture everything much much cheaper than anyone else, I'm not sure manufacturing is such a great place for a modern western nation to concentrate its efforts.
Enough of the self-abuse. We're doing OK.
Agreed. And although we maybe crap at producing football players, the Premier League is a world-renowned brand.
Am I the only one here who's seriously underwhelmed by the start of the new Footy season after England's woeful performance at the World Cup in Brazil?
What's the German Bundesliga doing right that we aren't?
The issue for Paul is if the military industrial complex and Israel lobby go after him. Logically he appeals to sections of the electorate, young people and swing voters as well as tea party types, that others can't so he should really be a shoo in, especially when all the other candidates are compromised in some manner.
Sad how big money and big media distort US politics, looks like Rand has learnt from his father's experience and knows when to play the game though.
Still not convinced by Clinton, the neo cons are returning to the Dems if she wins, not the formidable candidate some consider her. Name recognition clearly boosts her current polling.
Sunil The Bundesliga has 45% of players foreign, the Premier League has 60%. More German clubs are also fan owned and have cheaper tickets. However, if you reduce the number of foreign PL players that may reduce its quality while helping homegrown talent
FalseFlag Personally I think Paul will take Iowa, Christie NH and maybe Cruz SC, Jeb Bush won't run. I can see Christie eventually winning after a long and bruising battle, establishment support and again a divided conservative vote.
Hillary will clean up the nomination winning Iowa and NH comfortably, maybe against a token Bernie Sanders candidacy and will be able to build a huge warchest while the GOP knock each other apart.
The general could well then be similar to 1968 with Hillary, like Nixon, a deeply divisive figure, who has already lost one tight campaign and Christie, like Humphrey, a likeable populist. It could be very tight, bot like Tricky Dicky I think she would squeak home
One can imagine Nicola Sturgeon sweeping in Yes Scotland's headquarters. A nervous looking chap in a suit comes foward
"Lord Sturgeon. This is an execpected, err, pleasure. We are honoured by your presence." "We may dispense with the pleasantaries. I am here to put this campaign back on schedule" "My Lord, we ARE on course for victory. There WILL be a currency union, Your campaigners are working as hard as is possible." "Perhaps I can find new ways to...motivate..them. The Emperor does not share your optimism" Chap in suit fingers his neck even more nervously. Whispers "I fear he asks the impossible. We need more votes" "I see. Perhaps you would care to inform the Emperor when he arrives in order to prepare for his next debate on television"
Guy in suit swallows and looks stricken
"The Emperor is coming here?" "Correct. And he is most displeased with the polls" "We shall redouble our efforts" "I hope so, for your sake. The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am. And for god's sake remember he's on a diet so keep the pies out of sight. "
I wish I had a solution to the principal-agent problem! It would be worth a Nobel Prize (in economics, I hasten to add...)
The basic problem is one of globalisation: the reality is that firms have outgrown the capacity of shareholders to control the directors, while the directors don't have the knowledge to question the management and (in reality) very few managers make that much of a difference. Add to this the conservative/risk-adverse way in which headhunters and search committees nominate management and you have a relatively small group of individuals who are deemed "capable" of running big companies - who are then in a position to demand "star" wages which are often undeserved.
In my view, the solution is smaller, privately owned companies. It's best when these companies are owned by families or over multiple generations because that creates a moral incentive to take a long-term perspective. (This is why, for instance, the Mittelstand does well). But, there again, I would say that, wouldn't I!
This is a good article I came across while looking for Graef Crystal's website (wikipedia.org/wiki/Graef_Crystal) - but unfortunately he seems to have taken it down. Worth reading his stuff though.
Mr. Charles, there would seem to be a large and growing body of opinion that corporate governance is on the wrong track, not only in the UK but across the Western world. I doubt anything will change, for reasons neatly out lined in the article you quoted, without government action.
Now, as the research clearly demonstrates that there is no correlation between executive compensation and company performance there is no need for a country to try and get international agreement. The idea that if, say, the UK acted all the top players would rush off elsewhere can now be met with a insouciant reply of, "So?", confident that there would be no negative effect on UK commerce and industry.
The question must be which political party will seize this issue and what proposals will they bring forward? I think that the social impact of having CEO's being paid 350 times the median salary paid to the other company employees is now becoming so toxic that surely some politician is going to go for it. What they will bring forward is going to be interesting, I hope it is just not restrictions on remuneration but a much wider reform of corporate governance that will encourage stewardship and long term thinking.
SeanT Agreed, though as you state China will be a firmly first world nation with a few decades, with a GDP per capita higher than many EU nations and not far behind the US
Charles Surely it is up to shareholders, after all the likes of Sir Martin Sorrell at WPP have had their pay voted down by shareholders, so it can be done
SeanT Agreed, though as you state China will be a firmly first world nation with a few decades, with a GDP per capita higher than many EU nations and not far behind the US
Charles Surely it is up to shareholders, after all the likes of Sir Martin Sorrell at WPP have had their pay voted down by shareholders, so it can be done
Mr Hyfud, doesn't the situation at WPP actually emphasise the point made by Mr. Charles. WPP is actually a relatively small company ans so still in the scope of control by shareholders.
@Financier - UK companies export less than companies from elsewhere in Europe. Our R&D investment is abysmal. Productivity is below average. That's just rank bad management.
Are our companies owned to export outside of Europe? The sole reason Nissan et al are here is to export to the European market. We have become remarkably foreign-owned. For a lot of global multinationals Britain provides free access to continental Europe. They aren't interested in exporting to China.
If
The
Spot on.
Spot on again, Mr Observer, but how do we change the situation? I would have thought that the answer must lie in corporate governance and the way the risks and rewards are structured for senior executives, but God knows how you do it. This is the sort of issue that people like Charles, gent of this parish, should be all over.
Quite a lot of nonsense being spouted here. To listen to pb-ers, you'd think the British economy was a unique basket-case.
Enough of the self-abuse. We're doing OK.
Agreed. And although we maybe crap at producing football players, the Premier League is a world-renowned brand.
We're not even THAT bad at manufacturing.
The Nissan plant in Sunderland now produces more cars.... than the whole of Italy.
Good point, Sean. And, of course, Nissan built their cars here to get access to the EU market. How many Japanese car plants are there in Norway, Switzerland or the other EEA states?
One can imagine Nicola Sturgeon sweeping in Yes Scotland's headquarters. A nervous looking chap in a suit comes foward
"Lord Sturgeon. This is an execpected, err, pleasure. We are honoured by your presence." "We may dispense with the pleasantaries. I am here to put this campaign back on schedule" "My Lord, we ARE on course for victory. There WILL be a currency union, Your campaigners are working as hard as is possible." "Perhaps I can find new ways to...motivate..them. The Emperor does not share your optimism" Chap in suit fingers his neck even more nervously. Whispers "I fear he asks the impossible. We need more votes" "I see. Perhaps you would care to inform the Emperor when he arrives in order to prepare for his next debate on television"
Guy in suit swallows and looks stricken
"The Emperor is coming here?" "Correct. And he is most displeased with the polls" "We shall redouble our efforts" "I hope so, for your sake. The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am. And for god's sake remember he's on a diet so keep the pies out of sight. "
The Emperor arrives:
Alex: Rise, my friend. Nicola: The Currency Union will be completed on schedule. Alex: You've done well, Lady Sturgeon. And now I sense your wish to continue your search for young Cameron. Nicola: Yes, my Master. Alex: Patience, my friend. In time, he will seek *you* out, and when he does, you must bring him before me. He has grown strong. Only together can we turn him to the Daft Side of the Indy Debate. Nicola: As you wish. Alex: Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen. [cackles]
The fundamental dishonesty of the Yes campaign where everything remains the same except all the things that get better has been exposed by the currency question but that is only one aspect of the fantasy.
Another example was of course the Oil Fund. Maybe about 1980 that would have been a good idea. Right now Scotland has a larger deficit than the rest of the UK (and that is about as low a bar as one can be measured against in western Europe) spending every penny of the oil money. So to claim we can spend more and have a fund is just a lie.
The EU is another lie. I have no doubt that a way would be found, eventually, to have Scotland admitted to the EU but the terms are up for grabs and would not be as favourable as those negotiated by the UK (despite Blair's best efforts to give those advantages away).
The fact is that dismantling a modern integrated state is a daunting proposition. If we had a major racial or religious difference which meant that Scots as a minority were being continually oppressed or abused it might be worth contemplating the trauma. We are so far from that in the UK that I find it baffling that the vote is as close as the polling indicates.
If Britain got a free trade, EEA-style relationship with the EU, like Switzerland or Norway, then Nissan would happily continue manufacturing in the UK.
So for the record, your preferred option is for the UK to leave the EU and (remain) in the EEA?
If Britain got a free trade, EEA-style relationship with the EU, like Switzerland or Norway, then Nissan would happily continue manufacturing in the UK.
So for the record, your preferred option is for the UK to leave the EU and (remain) in the EEA?
Now, as the research clearly demonstrates that there is no correlation between executive compensation and company performance there is no need for a country to try and get international agreement. The idea that if, say, the UK acted all the top players would rush off elsewhere can now be met with a insouciant reply of, "So?", confident that there would be no negative effect on UK commerce and industry.
I don't disagree. There are some executives who add real value (e.g. Willie Purves, Brian Pitman, John Rose, etc) but they are relatively few and far between. What most big companies actually need is a good manager, not some strategic visionary.
The problem, though, with unilateral action is that - although insouciance is an attractive idea - shareholders will mark down the value of the shares of any company that allowed such as "brain drain" to occur.
I'm not sure what the answer is, to be honest: far brighter people than me have struggled with it. I absolutely accept the social issues of pay differentials of the kind of scale that we see - but I'm really not convinced that government action will make things any better.
In general, though, I'd want to ensure that any senior management (needs to reach 2 levels below the C-suite) has a significant economic interest in the success of the company's they run. It might be as simple as paying any bonuses above a certain level in shares that can't be sold until the executive retires (and perhaps then only over, say, a 3 or 5 years period post retirement to reduce the risk of gaming the last year). If an executive leaves a company for a senior position in another firm, these shares are lost and - if the new company chooses to buy out the shares, as will happen in practice - it can only be for the same restricted stock.
And if people decide to head abroad to work for international companies, so be it.
re: my previous comment, this is from Brian Pitman's evidence to the Future of Banking Commission. Great man, sadly missed.
"Nobody is a greater believer in shareholder value than me... It's long term shareholder value and everything has to be structured around the long term, particularly the remuneration structure has to be around the long term. The minute you move to a huge emphasis on short term big bonuses you're going to change the behaviour. It is perfectly possible, in our case for 17 years when I was there, we were doubling the value of the company every three years for 17 years. Nearly everybody had shares in the company; messengers were worth a quarter of a million pounds when I left because we'd been successful as an organisation. But we believed it all had to start with the customer."
This is true. iScotland could set up a Scottish Pound (SCP?), create a central Bank of Scotland as a central bank, peg it to GBP for 6-24 months to allow a changeover, then let it float freely. Easy-peasy. Latvia did exactly that when it detached from the roublezone. So why isn't Salmond recommending exactly that? Because Salmond does not know how to build a country.
And Lativia promptly joined the Euro a few years later...
Which is kinda the point. By disconnecting from the rouble and creating its own currency and central bank, it became stable enough to be admitted to the EU and then Euro. Whether it was wise to do so is a question I will leave for the reader, but the point is that creating your own currency is a necessary part of full independence, and that a currency union needs the cooperation of both parties.
Wonder what the infamous Latvian Homphobes made of it all?
Given that the EU later prevented them from passing a law to allow anti-gay discrimination (more specifically, prevented from removing a clause to prevent it, but let's not get caught in double negatives), I should imagine they were somewhat miffed.
If Britain got a free trade, EEA-style relationship with the EU, like Switzerland or Norway, then Nissan would happily continue manufacturing in the UK.
So for the record, your preferred option is for the UK to leave the EU and (remain) in the EEA?
If Britain got a free trade, EEA-style relationship with the EU, like Switzerland or Norway, then Nissan would happily continue manufacturing in the UK.
So for the record, your preferred option is for the UK to leave the EU and (remain) in the EEA?
If Britain got a free trade, EEA-style relationship with the EU, like Switzerland or Norway, then Nissan would happily continue manufacturing in the UK.
So for the record, your preferred option is for the UK to leave the EU and (remain) in the EEA?
Sounds good to me!
Its a plausible option - the tricky bit is getting the best deal we can on the way to getting there. But in reality we would not be much different. This is what Farage stays quiet about. We would be in the single market we would be paying money to EU regional funds and we would be part of free movement of Labour. Norway are in the Schengen agreement - would that be a price for we would have to or want to pay? Thats why these things are not so straight forward and why I for one would be opposed to a straight unnegotiated exit from the EU.
If Britain got a free trade, EEA-style relationship with the EU, like Switzerland or Norway, then Nissan would happily continue manufacturing in the UK.
So for the record, your preferred option is for the UK to leave the EU and (remain) in the EEA?
I'm genuinely undecided, as it is impossible to say what kind of EU will be in place by the time the referendum finally comes around. Maybe Cameron will get his reforms - or maybe the EU will hasten on to Federalism and we will be formally shifted to the periphery by default.
If there was a vote NOW, I suppose I'd vote to leave and go into the EEA, or some sui generis form of associate membership, but it's a very fine call. I could be persuaded either way; I want to hear the arguments.
“It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out if you release a report like this at a time when terrorism is surging all over the Mideast you are handing the other side a recruitment tool,”
CIA complaining that releasing a report on how they've been torturing thousands of people all over the middle east will cause problems because the middle east is a tinder box without seeing that maybe torturing thousands of people might have something to do with it being a tinder box.
Couple of interesting (to me) points 1) Obama apparently banned some of the techniques they were using when he got elected so if water boarding wasn't one of the ones banned then they must have been doing stuff even worse and 2) I wonder if UK involvement will be Chilcotted long enough for blank blank to be safely retired.
As it's a quiet Saturday afternoon, could I pick the brains of you historian types, please?
Thinking back on the reasons for WW1, could the British Government have played it like a game of Diplomacy instead?
We could have signed the Entente Cordiale with a smile and crossed fingers, but ten years later, smirked when Germany tore up the Schlieffen plan and invaded Russia instead.
Assuming they swept to Moscow past the still mobilising Russian army, we could then have invaded the totally unprepared France. A few weeks later, Germany would have made a second front against the demoralised Frogs who’d have been jumping up and down yelling “Zut alors” or ”Perfidious Anglais” or somesuch. As for the Austrians, they’d have been too busy causing avalanches in the Alps.
The Royal family could have kept their surname and we could have continued five hundred years of history and pilfered the French homeland and colonies at leisure.
Good point, Sean. And, of course, Nissan built their cars here to get access to the EU market. How many Japanese car plants are there in Norway, Switzerland or the other EEA states?
Er, not many, because Norway and Switzerland have tiny, highly paid populations and large scale manufacturing doesn't make much sense.
If access to euroland was SO crucial you'd think Nissan would have followed through on their threats and moved to the eurozone, when we didn't join the euro. But they didn't move, and we didn't join the euro, and the Nissan factory boomed nonetheless.
If Britain got a free trade, EEA-style relationship with the EU, like Switzerland or Norway, then Nissan would happily continue manufacturing in the UK.
And we would still be in the single market, still paying to EU regional funds and still part of free movement of labour. Since the immigrant foreigner hating kippers despise free movement of labour I doubt that that would satisfy them.
Being in the EEA would make no discernable difference to where we are now - other than putting Farage out of a cushy well paid job. It might make things worse since Norawy - in the -are part of Schengen and that might be a condition of us leaving the EU and joining the EEA.
This is not to say i do not think this would be bad for the UK. There is an argument for us being in the EEA - as long as we are in the single market then we protect our jobs. But the point is the EU is not going to go away, we still have to deal with it and ereally being in the EEA would make no effective difference. (Walking out of the EU would in the end make no difference because any future agereement would be EEA like - its just we wlould be in a weak posaition to agree terms)
Its a plausible option - the tricky bit is getting the best deal we can on the way to getting there. But in reality we would not be much different. This is what Farage stays quiet about. We would be in the single market we would be paying money to EU regional funds and we would be part of free movement of Labour. Norway are in the Schengen agreement - would that be a price for we would have to or want to pay? Thats why these things are not so straight forward and why I for one would be opposed to a straight unnegotiated exit from the EU.
Ironically, the best Eurosceptic routemap I've read is Mansfield's Brexit Prize winner.[1] Unlike Bootle's waste of time (for which he won £100K: he really should be ashamed), Mansfield cuts to the chase (realising that the crux of the matter is leaving the single market and recommends same), acknowledges there will be disadvantages, recommends fund deployment to plug the gaps and points out that in the medium-term growth will be negative or negligible as things adjust. It's not my preferred option, but it hangs together and acknowledges the realities on the ground.
As it's a quiet Saturday afternoon, could I pick the brains of you historian types, please?
Thinking back on the reasons for WW1, could the British Government have played it like a game of Diplomacy instead?
We could have signed the Entente Cordiale with a smile and crossed fingers, but ten years later, smirked when Germany tore up the Schlieffen plan and invaded Russia instead.
Assuming they swept to Moscow past the still mobilising Russian army, we could then have invaded the totally unprepared France. A few weeks later, Germany would have made a second front against the demoralised Frogs who’d have been jumping up and down yelling “Zut alors” or ”Perfidious Anglais” or somesuch. As for the Austrians, they’d have been too busy causing avalanches in the Alps.
The Royal family could have kept their surname and we could have continued five hundred years of history and pilfered the French homeland and colonies at leisure.
Did we miss a trick there?
Mr Llama is the expert of the period, but don't forget one of the two consistent themes of British foreign policy is to prevent any single nation from controlling the European coastline.
Germany's war aims for a settlement with France would have resulted in just that.
@CD13 Nope, there were empires to be considered..... Everyone else had grabbed the best bits, and the Germans objected. The strength of their navy meant the British had to fight.
As it's a quiet Saturday afternoon, could I pick the brains of you historian types, please?
Thinking back on the reasons for WW1, could the British Government have played it like a game of Diplomacy instead?
We could have signed the Entente Cordiale with a smile and crossed fingers, but ten years later, smirked when Germany tore up the Schlieffen plan and invaded Russia instead.
Assuming they swept to Moscow past the still mobilising Russian army, we could then have invaded the totally unprepared France. A few weeks later, Germany would have made a second front against the demoralised Frogs who’d have been jumping up and down yelling “Zut alors” or ”Perfidious Anglais” or somesuch. As for the Austrians, they’d have been too busy causing avalanches in the Alps.
The Royal family could have kept their surname and we could have continued five hundred years of history and pilfered the French homeland and colonies at leisure.
Did we miss a trick there?
according to your scenario we lost a whole pack of cards. LOL
I really cannot see us being in the EU for the long haul on the present basis. The recent idiotic attacks on the City which seem to be ever more incessant threaten our future standard of living.
As I see it we either join the Euro or we find some sort of associate status which keeps us in the Common market but out of the decision making process of the EU or we leave. Option 2 looks the most likely to me at the moment and is probably the best option for our future prosperity.
My concern is that if the associate status is going to be on vaguely sensible terms which make it viable for the long term we need a competent team to negotiate the new settlement. For me the choice between Cameron and Osborne or the 2 Eds is just blindingly obvious and actually quite important.
If I was a UKIP supporter I just might be tempted by Ed because he would likely screw this up making the third option more likely in the medium term.
And Lativia promptly joined the Euro a few years later...
Wonder what the infamous Latvian Homphobes made of it all?
Lol! I think they're quite keen on the EU and the Euro, mainly because they'd rather be gay than Russian.
In Shanghai at the moment after a few days in Beijing - it really is a lot more fun than Beijing, (think Berlin vs Bonn, or Soho vs Westminster). Can't see any sign of the rudeness that some attribute to the Chinese - everyone's been very helpful in both places, including strangers offering advice if I looked baffled in the street. If you avoid the irritating nouveau riche shops (Cartier etc.), both cities are actually quite cheap at current exchange rates. The English-language press varies in its conformity - the South China Morning News (Hong Kong based) is pretty frank about controversies, others less so. But there are lots of apparently unrigged polls in the press to gladden any PB heart - e.g. one showing that most people were fairly confident (54%) that the government would make progress vs corruption but not at all confident ((only 22%) that they'd achieve their stated goal of narrowing social inequalities.
Came here by train as several of you advised - comfortable and very smooth, at 200 miles an hour for the wholw stretch. Shanghai had the longest taxi queue I've ever seen - at least 200 people - and touts tried to lure the hapless to their presumably exorbitant private hire cars - "you'll be waiting two hours, sir!", one advised me. But the efficient station management funnelled through a triple lane of taxis and it cleared in 10 minutes.
"Everyone else had grabbed the best bits, and the Germans objected."
Ahh ... but under plan smartypants, we could have had the Austrians form an immediate second front against France leaving the Serbs or Croats to form their modern Yugoslavia. The Vienna wanderers team were pretty sh*te and not a problem anyway, and even against an ailing, unprepared Russia, the Germans would have managed to get bogged down and bled dry.
As it's a quiet Saturday afternoon, could I pick the brains of you historian types, please?
Thinking back on the reasons for WW1, could the British Government have played it like a game of Diplomacy instead?
We could have signed the Entente Cordiale with a smile and crossed fingers, but ten years later, smirked when Germany tore up the Schlieffen plan and invaded Russia instead.
Assuming they swept to Moscow past the still mobilising Russian army, we could then have invaded the totally unprepared France. A few weeks later, Germany would have made a second front against the demoralised Frogs who’d have been jumping up and down yelling “Zut alors” or ”Perfidious Anglais” or somesuch. As for the Austrians, they’d have been too busy causing avalanches in the Alps.
The Royal family could have kept their surname and we could have continued five hundred years of history and pilfered the French homeland and colonies at leisure.
Did we miss a trick there?
according to your scenario we lost a whole pack of cards. LOL
What on earth were we going to invade France with? The BEF in 1914 was less than 10% of the size of the French army and not well equipped for European warfare.
We could have joined up with the Germans, let them worry about the French on the continent and simply done our usual trick of picking up colonies (maybe offering the Germans a cut) but the idea we could have threatened France itself ourselves is fairly absurd.
@CD13 It might have been a sound plan. However Britain at that time ruled the waves, and those waves made a lot of money. Do you think anyone at the top would risk all that investment?
The SNP are not a serious political party - they are a group of people with a chip on their collective shoulders - possibly several chips. They are a protest party, a dustbin for protest votes. UKIP are pretty much exactly the same.
They have no plan for an independent Scotland because they have never seriously thought about it. Only north sea oil has given a few people the notion of peddling independence. The currency bombshell has blown up in Salmond's face because his previous option was the Euro and the crisis in the Eurozone has tripped him up. Darlings performance was not apparently brilliant but he was at least able to point out that the Emperor Salmond had no clothes.
You're probably right but that's the advantage of hindsight and a stab in the back, I suppose. Oh, and the Kraut surface navy was frit (apart from Jutland).
As it's a quiet Saturday afternoon, could I pick the brains of you historian types, please?
Thinking back on the reasons for WW1, could the British Government have played it like a game of Diplomacy instead?
We could have signed the Entente Cordiale with a smile and crossed fingers, but ten years later, smirked when Germany tore up the Schlieffen plan and invaded Russia instead.
Assuming they swept to Moscow past the still mobilising Russian army, we could then have invaded the totally unprepared France. A few weeks later, Germany would have made a second front against the demoralised Frogs who’d have been jumping up and down yelling “Zut alors” or ”Perfidious Anglais” or somesuch. As for the Austrians, they’d have been too busy causing avalanches in the Alps.
The Royal family could have kept their surname and we could have continued five hundred years of history and pilfered the French homeland and colonies at leisure.
Did we miss a trick there?
No.
1. The Russians mobilized much faster than the Schlieffen Plan envisaged. They wouldn't have got to Moscow in three months starting in August on 1914 technology; they'd have frozen. (In any case, the Russian capital was St Petersburg, but same thing).
2. Britain invades France with what? The British army was tiny in 1914 compared to the other European great powers. Britain's value to France pre-1914 lay in (1) the fleet, (2) finance, (3) the fact that the army could be expanded greatly if necessary, (4) that even a small professional army might hold up the German invasion for a few days which might prove critical given the Russian factor.
3. If Germany invaded Russia, France would have invaded Germany (which they did anyway, before Joffre managed to recover the position).
However, your question isn't quite as silly as it first sounds. It *is* completely silly if you start in June 1914 as there's no way the people involved would or even could have done as you suggest. On the other hand, if you start earlier, there might have been merit in Britain joining the German/Austrian alliance rather than the Franco-Russian one given where the imperial threats were. Providing Germany agreed to respect Belgian neutrality (which it would have done had Russia been invaded first), and it sought no significant changes to European borders outside of SW Russia at least, where an independent buffer state would have been very useful to Britain, such an arrangement might have been possible.
hello viewcode - you quote... ''acknowledges there will be disadvantages, recommends fund deployment to plug the gaps and points out that in the medium-term growth will be negative or negligible as things adjust.''
Yes so that is going to win votes? Actually promising negative growth? The 'trust me i know what i'm doing' gambit? Like voters will accept that it will be all right on the night after all this negative growth (and job losses). As with Salmond and the nats its a senario built on hope over expectation - do British car workers (and automotive suppliers) really want to leave the single market?
Given that we are all going to busy ark building tomorrow is this test match heading for a disappointing draw?
Jimmy is looking out of sorts, Stuart Broad is off to hospital and the rest just are not that threatening on a good pitch. Unless India self destruct (which is always possible) forcing the win is going to be tricky.
You're probably right but that's the advantage of hindsight and a stab in the back, I suppose. Oh, and the Kraut surface navy was frit (apart from Jutland).
The High Seas Fleet was frit at Jutland too. They only got into the battle because they thought they'd caught the British battlecruisers without the cover of the Grand Fleet. Pretty much as soon as Jellicoe turned up, they U-turned back to port even though they outfought the Royal Navy on the day given their disadvantage in ships and guns.
The SNP are not a serious political party - they are a group of people with a chip on their collective shoulders - possibly several chips. They are a protest party, a dustbin for protest votes. UKIP are pretty much exactly the same.
They have no plan for an independent Scotland because they have never seriously thought about it. Only north sea oil has given a few people the notion of peddling independence. The currency bombshell has blown up in Salmond's face because his previous option was the Euro and the crisis in the Eurozone has tripped him up. Darlings performance was not apparently brilliant but he was at least able to point out that the Emperor Salmond had no clothes.
This "non serious party" currently has an absolute majority in the Scottish Parliament and a very strong grip in local government. They are not going anywhere, even if this is Salmond proving the adage about the end of political careers.
As a party united by independence and not much else having coherent policies on everything has always been more difficult but they have been remarkably disciplined in government.
Mr. Observer, carving England up in little regions is unacceptable. England's one land. Was Scotland sliced up into Islands, Highlands and Lowlands?
Of course not.
Not a fair comparison - at 5m the entire population of Scotland is roughly the same as Yorkshire. And there does seem to be a bit of a sweet spot in organising things for a population of 5-10 million, it's big enough for reasonable economies of scale but small enough for government to still be connected with the people. Personally I'd like the UK federalised with the primary level of government at regional level as in Germany - as a first approximation you could use the NUTS1 regions of England, maybe give them traditional names like Mercia and Northumbria to appease the old-timers.
D'y'know - I was literally just watching T in the Park highlights (presumably SBBC only) before I got to this thread.
OT-ish but as it happens the BBC in England goes pretty big on Titp - not to the same extreme extent as Glastonbury but it takes up BBC3 for a couple of nights with highlights packages ending up on BBC2. I guess it's ticking some kind of regional culture box in the same way as maintaining a Scottish symphony orchestra, as well as being a nice jolly for the many Scots in BBC radio.
hello viewcode - you quote... ''acknowledges there will be disadvantages, recommends fund deployment to plug the gaps and points out that in the medium-term growth will be negative or negligible as things adjust.''
Yes so that is going to win votes? Actually promising negative growth? The 'trust me i know what i'm doing' gambit? Like voters will accept that it will be all right on the night after all this negative growth (and job losses). As with Salmond and the nats its a senario built on hope over expectation - do British car workers (and automotive suppliers) really want to leave the single market?
I did say it wasn't my preferred option. My point was to distinguish between Eurosceptic roadmaps that acknowledge reality (like Mansfield's) and those that do not (like Bootle's). I think all sides agree that the staus quo regarding UK/EU is not sustainable: the forces drawing the Eurozone nations together will produce something close to a country called Europe, and the UK does not want to be a part of this. Nothing I can say will change the UK's reluctance (nor should it), and nothing the Eurosceptics can say will change the Eurozone's neue manifest destiny (nor should it).
Given this, we will have to make a choice.
I would prefer that that choice be between well-defined options, and that each option's disadvantages and advantages be expressed honestly so people can make a free choice. If the current situation continues, where f***wits like Boris Johnson can propose impossible renegotiation criteria without anybody calling him on it, people will make bad choices based on inaccurate information, and that always ends badly (see Salmond's stupidity regarding GBP)
The other big thing related to 9/11 and the middle-east etc is the possibility that 28 pages from the original 9/11 report that were classified by Bush could be made public.
Given that we are all going to busy ark building tomorrow is this test match heading for a disappointing draw?
Jimmy is looking out of sorts, Stuart Broad is off to hospital and the rest just are not that threatening on a good pitch. Unless India self destruct (which is always possible) forcing the win is going to be tricky.
Not the best-timed post. Hope you didn't back the draw?
Evening Standard @standardnews · 1m Police probe "well-organised" theft of oil from pipeline under Nick Clegg's country residence http://bit.ly/1oQ1zxt
D'y'know - I was literally just watching T in the Park highlights (presumably SBBC only) before I got to this thread.
OT-ish but as it happens the BBC in England goes pretty big on Titp - not to the same extreme extent as Glastonbury but it takes up BBC3 for a couple of nights with highlights packages ending up on BBC2. I guess it's ticking some kind of regional culture box in the same way as maintaining a Scottish symphony orchestra, as well as being a nice jolly for the many Scots in BBC radio.
Yes - it was good - I was watching.
Like all things BBC/Murdoch/(PBC?) related I am a massive hypocrite - I can't exactly critise all the spend on Glastonbury if I was watching it all can I? Murdoch (PBC? - not comparing the two - other than them being my major new's outlets)'s different - without going into the newspapers - I've always been a big fan of Sky News, but I'm surely allowed a more nuanced view than that.
Yes Viewcode I take your points. Appreciate you said it was not a preferred option. I agree we need to consider options and no doubt that will (or should) take place after the election. Cameron has said he does not want to be a part of ever closer union, and that is where we start from. Well thats true if you are a conservative. Not if you are a socialist or libdem.
The EU and Eurozone part of it is going to grow closer and we need to create a new relationship which protects all our self interests.
The other big thing related to 9/11 and the middle-east etc is the possibility that 28 pages from the original 9/11 report that were classified by Bush could be made public.
I think all sides agree that the staus quo regarding UK/EU is not sustainable: the forces drawing the Eurozone nations together will produce something close to a country called Europe, and the UK does not want to be a part of this. Nothing I can say will change the UK's reluctance (nor should it), and nothing the Eurosceptics can say will change the Eurozone's neue manifest destiny (nor should it).
I don't see what's unsustainable about this. The Eurozone does greater fiscal integration for Eurozone countries, and the EU as a whole does gradual democratic political integration but without new treaties (eg by the member states feeling obliged to select the candidate of the winning group as Commission President, then that person having gradually more say in who his team is and what they do).
The UK proceed to complain and mutter about seceding but never actually do it, like Texas has been doing since forever.
The other big thing related to 9/11 and the middle-east etc is the possibility that 28 pages from the original 9/11 report that were classified by Bush could be made public.
The other big thing related to 9/11 and the middle-east etc is the possibility that 28 pages from the original 9/11 report that were classified by Bush could be made public.
They're supposed to contain all the stuff related to Saudi involvement in 9/11 which was covered cos of the petrodollar etc.
If true then it looks like not wanting to blame the Saudis meant they needed someone else to be a scapegoat and Saddam was it.
Hilarity ensued.
Was there any sentient being who, in 2002, thought that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11? It wasn't even the reason used to justify the invasion.
Either way it distracted attention from the Saudis.
changing "scapegoat" to "whipping boy" might be better i.e. they wanted to blow something substantial up in revenge and Afghanistan wasn't enough cos it was just rocks and goats
I think all sides agree that the staus quo regarding UK/EU is not sustainable: the forces drawing the Eurozone nations together will produce something close to a country called Europe, and the UK does not want to be a part of this. Nothing I can say will change the UK's reluctance (nor should it), and nothing the Eurosceptics can say will change the Eurozone's neue manifest destiny (nor should it).
I don't see what's unsustainable about this. The Eurozone does greater fiscal integration for Eurozone countries, and the EU as a whole does gradual democratic political integration but without new treaties (eg by the member states feeling obliged to select the candidate of the winning group as Commission President, then that person having gradually more say in who his team is and what they do).
The UK proceed to complain and mutter about seceding but never actually do it, like Texas has been doing since forever.
Texas did secede, in 1861. It was readmitted to the Union in 1870.
Comments
Of course not.
Carving up England is just a recipe for greater division and perhaps, ultimately, separation. That may sound unlikely, but consider how devolution was meant to kill nationalism stone dead and what it's instead led to.
An English Parliament is the answer.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28716245
(presumably that means that Senator Portman is less likely to be a VP pick, because that would mean that you would be wasting a potential chip that could be used in another state?)
A bank in an independent Dundee has an ATM. The ATM runs out of physical £5 and £10 notes. Where does it get new ones from? It can't be from the vaults because (due to fractional banking) it has way more assets and liabilities than petty cash. A rUK bank would get it from the BOE/Mint, exchanging its bits and bytes denoting its credit for physical paper. But a iScotland bank can't do that. Result? Dundee bank runs out of paper, bank run happens, ban collapses.
An iScotland government pays its employees in GBP. A momentary imbalance means money coming in is less than money going out. It can't meet payroll. The rUK government can just print more GBP, but the iScotland government can't do that. So it borrows from a banker outside iScotland, and - yes - the debt is in GBP. If taxes continue to exceed expenditure, this debt accelerates and eventually the iScotland government collapses.
Salmon's insistence that he can keep GBP without rUK consent is entirely fictional. Genuinely. It's not just the EU. Without rUK consent, it couldn't become part of the Commonwealth (i.e. it couldn't send delegates to a CHOGM without an invite). If it refuses to take its share of the debt, it couldn't join the IMF (like, hello!). That's not just independence, it's living in the off-world colonies. As I have argued on these pages, Salmond genuinely does not know how to build a country. His insistence that he can keep GBP demonstrates this. The Irish worked out how to build a country after a war of independence and in the teeth of a civil war, and pulled it off. Salmond, in the midst of peace and plenty, got even the simple things wrong. How many times does he have to mess up before SNP realise he's just not competent on this issue?
It would probably reduce Scotland to the level of Panama or somewhere, though, LOL!
Rand Paul getting the antiwar vote with a VP pick with a strong record on immigration/affirmative action (Steve King?) could be a winning combination.
So why isn't Salmond recommending exactly that? Because Salmond does not know how to build a country.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4573/united-nations-human-rights-council
I like a nice bit of Baroque as much as the next man, especially when I am studying or writing and I agree Haydn can be sublime. However, the idea that one can be over exposed to Mozart is crackers.
On the subject of Baroque music, when they were building the Voyager spacecraft which is to go outside the solar system, they decided to load it with images and tapes to show any aline finder what human civilisation is like. When they were deciding what should be put on board someone suggested music by J.S. Bach. The suggestion was turned down because we didn't want to show off.
If you have come up with a way to deal with associations like this, you could make a fortune!
Given the corporate governance rules in this country I can see no way that the situation will be changed without government action, not least because the same argument has leaked into the Civil Service and Local Government and is used there to justify ridiculously high salaries.
The basic problem is one of globalisation: the reality is that firms have outgrown the capacity of shareholders to control the directors, while the directors don't have the knowledge to question the management and (in reality) very few managers make that much of a difference. Add to this the conservative/risk-adverse way in which headhunters and search committees nominate management and you have a relatively small group of individuals who are deemed "capable" of running big companies - who are then in a position to demand "star" wages which are often undeserved.
In my view, the solution is smaller, privately owned companies. It's best when these companies are owned by families or over multiple generations because that creates a moral incentive to take a long-term perspective. (This is why, for instance, the Mittelstand does well). But, there again, I would say that, wouldn't I!
This is a good article I came across while looking for Graef Crystal's website (wikipedia.org/wiki/Graef_Crystal) - but unfortunately he seems to have taken it down. Worth reading his stuff though.
http://philebersole.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/graef-crystal-and-the-question-of-ceo-pay/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder_value
combined with
2) ease of hostile takeover (junk bonds etc)
both of which specifically infected Britain and America in the 1980s guarantees short termism as not operating to maximize short term profits allowed takeover and asset stripping.
And, of course, Nissan built their cars here to get access to the EU market.
How many Japanese car plants are there in Norway, Switzerland or the other EEA states?
"Enough of the self-abuse. We're doing OK."
Really? We are doing OK as a nation? That £100bn a year deficit is nothing to worry about? The fact that we have run a trade deficit every year since God knows when is OK? The fact that the UK's biggest export is our wealth is OK? Golly, Mr T, maybe you should spend some more time in the UK but away from Primrose Hill.
What's the German Bundesliga doing right that we aren't?
Sad how big money and big media distort US politics, looks like Rand has learnt from his father's experience and knows when to play the game though.
Still not convinced by Clinton, the neo cons are returning to the Dems if she wins, not the formidable candidate some consider her. Name recognition clearly boosts her current polling.
#NotCrossOverSaturday
Hillary will clean up the nomination winning Iowa and NH comfortably, maybe against a token Bernie Sanders candidacy and will be able to build a huge warchest while the GOP knock each other apart.
The general could well then be similar to 1968 with Hillary, like Nixon, a deeply divisive figure, who has already lost one tight campaign and Christie, like Humphrey, a likeable populist. It could be very tight, bot like Tricky Dicky I think she would squeak home
@Nebiroth
One can imagine Nicola Sturgeon sweeping in Yes Scotland's headquarters. A nervous looking chap in a suit comes foward
"Lord Sturgeon. This is an execpected, err, pleasure. We are honoured by your presence."
"We may dispense with the pleasantaries. I am here to put this campaign back on schedule"
"My Lord, we ARE on course for victory. There WILL be a currency union, Your campaigners are working as hard as is possible."
"Perhaps I can find new ways to...motivate..them. The Emperor does not share your optimism"
Chap in suit fingers his neck even more nervously. Whispers
"I fear he asks the impossible. We need more votes"
"I see. Perhaps you would care to inform the Emperor when he arrives in order to prepare for his next debate on television"
Guy in suit swallows and looks stricken
"The Emperor is coming here?"
"Correct. And he is most displeased with the polls"
"We shall redouble our efforts"
"I hope so, for your sake. The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am. And for god's sake remember he's on a diet so keep the pies out of sight. "
Now, as the research clearly demonstrates that there is no correlation between executive compensation and company performance there is no need for a country to try and get international agreement. The idea that if, say, the UK acted all the top players would rush off elsewhere can now be met with a insouciant reply of, "So?", confident that there would be no negative effect on UK commerce and industry.
The question must be which political party will seize this issue and what proposals will they bring forward? I think that the social impact of having CEO's being paid 350 times the median salary paid to the other company employees is now becoming so toxic that surely some politician is going to go for it. What they will bring forward is going to be interesting, I hope it is just not restrictions on remuneration but a much wider reform of corporate governance that will encourage stewardship and long term thinking.
Sterlingisation...
"Calm down, you daft old coot."
Thanks, Mr. T, you made me laugh.
Charles Surely it is up to shareholders, after all the likes of Sir Martin Sorrell at WPP have had their pay voted down by shareholders, so it can be done
The Emperor arrives:
Alex: Rise, my friend.
Nicola: The Currency Union will be completed on schedule.
Alex: You've done well, Lady Sturgeon. And now I sense your wish to continue your search for young Cameron.
Nicola: Yes, my Master.
Alex: Patience, my friend. In time, he will seek *you* out, and when he does, you must bring him before me. He has grown strong. Only together can we turn him to the Daft Side of the Indy Debate.
Nicola: As you wish.
Alex: Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen. [cackles]
Another example was of course the Oil Fund. Maybe about 1980 that would have been a good idea. Right now Scotland has a larger deficit than the rest of the UK (and that is about as low a bar as one can be measured against in western Europe) spending every penny of the oil money. So to claim we can spend more and have a fund is just a lie.
The EU is another lie. I have no doubt that a way would be found, eventually, to have Scotland admitted to the EU but the terms are up for grabs and would not be as favourable as those negotiated by the UK (despite Blair's best efforts to give those advantages away).
The fact is that dismantling a modern integrated state is a daunting proposition. If we had a major racial or religious difference which meant that Scots as a minority were being continually oppressed or abused it might be worth contemplating the trauma. We are so far from that in the UK that I find it baffling that the vote is as close as the polling indicates.
The problem, though, with unilateral action is that - although insouciance is an attractive idea - shareholders will mark down the value of the shares of any company that allowed such as "brain drain" to occur.
I'm not sure what the answer is, to be honest: far brighter people than me have struggled with it. I absolutely accept the social issues of pay differentials of the kind of scale that we see - but I'm really not convinced that government action will make things any better.
In general, though, I'd want to ensure that any senior management (needs to reach 2 levels below the C-suite) has a significant economic interest in the success of the company's they run. It might be as simple as paying any bonuses above a certain level in shares that can't be sold until the executive retires (and perhaps then only over, say, a 3 or 5 years period post retirement to reduce the risk of gaming the last year). If an executive leaves a company for a senior position in another firm, these shares are lost and - if the new company chooses to buy out the shares, as will happen in practice - it can only be for the same restricted stock.
And if people decide to head abroad to work for international companies, so be it.
"Nobody is a greater believer in shareholder value than me... It's long term shareholder value and everything has to be structured around the long term, particularly the remuneration structure has to be around the long term. The minute you move to a huge emphasis on short term big bonuses you're going to change the behaviour. It is perfectly possible, in our case for 17 years when I was there, we were doubling the value of the company every three years for 17 years. Nearly everybody had shares in the company; messengers were worth a quarter of a million pounds when I left because we'd been successful as an organisation. But we believed it all had to start with the customer."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/thereporters/robertpeston/2010/03/what_sir_brian_pitman_can_teac.html
But in reality we would not be much different. This is what Farage stays quiet about. We would be in the single market we would be paying money to EU regional funds and we would be part of free movement of Labour.
Norway are in the Schengen agreement - would that be a price for we would have to or want to pay? Thats why these things are not so straight forward and why I for one would be opposed to a straight unnegotiated exit from the EU.
https://news.yahoo.com/a-warning-on--torture-report--release-233244652.html
“It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out if you release a report like this at a time when terrorism is surging all over the Mideast you are handing the other side a recruitment tool,”
CIA complaining that releasing a report on how they've been torturing thousands of people all over the middle east will cause problems because the middle east is a tinder box without seeing that maybe torturing thousands of people might have something to do with it being a tinder box.
Couple of interesting (to me) points 1) Obama apparently banned some of the techniques they were using when he got elected so if water boarding wasn't one of the ones banned then they must have been doing stuff even worse and 2) I wonder if UK involvement will be Chilcotted long enough for blank blank to be safely retired.
Thinking back on the reasons for WW1, could the British Government have played it like a game of Diplomacy instead?
We could have signed the Entente Cordiale with a smile and crossed fingers, but ten years later, smirked when Germany tore up the Schlieffen plan and invaded Russia instead.
Assuming they swept to Moscow past the still mobilising Russian army, we could then have invaded the totally unprepared France. A few weeks later, Germany would have made a second front against the demoralised Frogs who’d have been jumping up and down yelling “Zut alors” or ”Perfidious Anglais” or somesuch. As for the Austrians, they’d have been too busy causing avalanches in the Alps.
The Royal family could have kept their surname and we could have continued five hundred years of history and pilfered the French homeland and colonies at leisure.
Did we miss a trick there?
Since the immigrant foreigner hating kippers despise free movement of labour I doubt that that would satisfy them.
Being in the EEA would make no discernable difference to where we are now - other than putting Farage out of a cushy well paid job. It might make things worse since Norawy - in the -are part of Schengen and that might be a condition of us leaving the EU and joining the EEA.
This is not to say i do not think this would be bad for the UK. There is an argument for us being in the EEA - as long as we are in the single market then we protect our jobs. But the point is the EU is not going to go away, we still have to deal with it and ereally being in the EEA would make no effective difference. (Walking out of the EU would in the end make no difference because any future agereement would be EEA like - its just we wlould be in a weak posaition to agree terms)
[1] http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/the-iea-brexit-prize-a-blueprint-for-britain-openness-not-isolation
Germany's war aims for a settlement with France would have resulted in just that.
Nope, there were empires to be considered..... Everyone else had grabbed the best bits, and the Germans objected.
The strength of their navy meant the British had to fight.
As I see it we either join the Euro or we find some sort of associate status which keeps us in the Common market but out of the decision making process of the EU or we leave. Option 2 looks the most likely to me at the moment and is probably the best option for our future prosperity.
My concern is that if the associate status is going to be on vaguely sensible terms which make it viable for the long term we need a competent team to negotiate the new settlement. For me the choice between Cameron and Osborne or the 2 Eds is just blindingly obvious and actually quite important.
If I was a UKIP supporter I just might be tempted by Ed because he would likely screw this up making the third option more likely in the medium term.
Lol! I think they're quite keen on the EU and the Euro, mainly because they'd rather be gay than Russian.
In Shanghai at the moment after a few days in Beijing - it really is a lot more fun than Beijing, (think Berlin vs Bonn, or Soho vs Westminster). Can't see any sign of the rudeness that some attribute to the Chinese - everyone's been very helpful in both places, including strangers offering advice if I looked baffled in the street. If you avoid the irritating nouveau riche shops (Cartier etc.), both cities are actually quite cheap at current exchange rates. The English-language press varies in its conformity - the South China Morning News (Hong Kong based) is pretty frank about controversies, others less so. But there are lots of apparently unrigged polls in the press to gladden any PB heart - e.g. one showing that most people were fairly confident (54%) that the government would make progress vs corruption but not at all confident ((only 22%) that they'd achieve their stated goal of narrowing social inequalities.
Came here by train as several of you advised - comfortable and very smooth, at 200 miles an hour for the wholw stretch. Shanghai had the longest taxi queue I've ever seen - at least 200 people - and touts tried to lure the hapless to their presumably exorbitant private hire cars - "you'll be waiting two hours, sir!", one advised me. But the efficient station management funnelled through a triple lane of taxis and it cleared in 10 minutes.
"Everyone else had grabbed the best bits, and the Germans objected."
Ahh ... but under plan smartypants, we could have had the Austrians form an immediate second front against France leaving the Serbs or Croats to form their modern Yugoslavia. The Vienna wanderers team were pretty sh*te and not a problem anyway, and even against an ailing, unprepared Russia, the Germans would have managed to get bogged down and bled dry.
We could have joined up with the Germans, let them worry about the French on the continent and simply done our usual trick of picking up colonies (maybe offering the Germans a cut) but the idea we could have threatened France itself ourselves is fairly absurd.
Based on Osborne's key point.
It might have been a sound plan. However Britain at that time ruled the waves, and those waves made a lot of money. Do you think anyone at the top would risk all that investment?
UKIP are pretty much exactly the same.
They have no plan for an independent Scotland because they have never seriously thought about it. Only north sea oil has given a few people the notion of peddling independence. The currency bombshell has blown up in Salmond's face because his previous option was the Euro and the crisis in the Eurozone has tripped him up. Darlings performance was not apparently brilliant but he was at least able to point out that the Emperor Salmond had no clothes.
You're probably right but that's the advantage of hindsight and a stab in the back, I suppose. Oh, and the Kraut surface navy was frit (apart from Jutland).
Jutland was more of a score draw. when it comes down to figures
1. The Russians mobilized much faster than the Schlieffen Plan envisaged. They wouldn't have got to Moscow in three months starting in August on 1914 technology; they'd have frozen. (In any case, the Russian capital was St Petersburg, but same thing).
2. Britain invades France with what? The British army was tiny in 1914 compared to the other European great powers. Britain's value to France pre-1914 lay in (1) the fleet, (2) finance, (3) the fact that the army could be expanded greatly if necessary, (4) that even a small professional army might hold up the German invasion for a few days which might prove critical given the Russian factor.
3. If Germany invaded Russia, France would have invaded Germany (which they did anyway, before Joffre managed to recover the position).
However, your question isn't quite as silly as it first sounds. It *is* completely silly if you start in June 1914 as there's no way the people involved would or even could have done as you suggest. On the other hand, if you start earlier, there might have been merit in Britain joining the German/Austrian alliance rather than the Franco-Russian one given where the imperial threats were. Providing Germany agreed to respect Belgian neutrality (which it would have done had Russia been invaded first), and it sought no significant changes to European borders outside of SW Russia at least, where an independent buffer state would have been very useful to Britain, such an arrangement might have been possible.
Yes so that is going to win votes? Actually promising negative growth? The 'trust me i know what i'm doing' gambit? Like voters will accept that it will be all right on the night after all this negative growth (and job losses). As with Salmond and the nats its a senario built on hope over expectation - do British car workers (and automotive suppliers) really want to leave the single market?
Jimmy is looking out of sorts, Stuart Broad is off to hospital and the rest just are not that threatening on a good pitch. Unless India self destruct (which is always possible) forcing the win is going to be tricky.
Thanks. So we'd have had to expand the regular army on the quiet a few years earlier. No, we'd have been too nice and gentlemanly, wouldn't we?
As a party united by independence and not much else having coherent policies on everything has always been more difficult but they have been remarkably disciplined in government.
Given this, we will have to make a choice.
I would prefer that that choice be between well-defined options, and that each option's disadvantages and advantages be expressed honestly so people can make a free choice. If the current situation continues, where f***wits like Boris Johnson can propose impossible renegotiation criteria without anybody calling him on it, people will make bad choices based on inaccurate information, and that always ends badly (see Salmond's stupidity regarding GBP)
If so that's a minor landmark, surely - given how people were making a big deal of the number of Undecided responses?
https://news.vice.com/article/campaign-mounts-to-declassify-911-reports-references-to-alleged-saudi-involvement
They're supposed to contain all the stuff related to Saudi involvement in 9/11 which was covered cos of the petrodollar etc.
If true then it looks like not wanting to blame the Saudis meant they needed someone else to be a scapegoat and Saddam was it.
Hilarity ensued.
Police probe "well-organised" theft of oil from pipeline under Nick Clegg's country residence http://bit.ly/1oQ1zxt
Like all things BBC/Murdoch/(PBC?) related I am a massive hypocrite - I can't exactly critise all the spend on Glastonbury if I was watching it all can I? Murdoch (PBC? - not comparing the two - other than them being my major new's outlets)'s different - without going into the newspapers - I've always been a big fan of Sky News, but I'm surely allowed a more nuanced view than that.
I agree we need to consider options and no doubt that will (or should) take place after the election. Cameron has said he does not want to be a part of ever closer union, and that is where we start from. Well thats true if you are a conservative. Not if you are a socialist or libdem.
The EU and Eurozone part of it is going to grow closer and we need to create a new relationship which protects all our self interests.
The UK proceed to complain and mutter about seceding but never actually do it, like Texas has been doing since forever.
Mr. Tokyo, some of us believe the EU/eurozone is inherently unsustainable. The economies, cultures and political structures are too divergent.