I'd expect the SNP to pick up votes in 2015 even if there is a No vote. They do have a positive vision for Scotland, even if the detail is deeply flawed, and they are clearly established as the one party Scots voters can be certain will put Scotland first.
There are a couple of problems with that scenario
It assumes the SNP get no voter backlash from so spectacularly bungling their entire reason for existence. Incompetence is not vote friendly
It also assumes the SNP doesn't completely implode in bitter recriminations about who was to blame for losing the only vote that mattered in their entire history.
Scott trying to pretend he has a brain cell is hilarious. There is some serious bullshit being posted on here today but cretins like Scott and southern turnips that could hardly pick Scotland out on a map yet pontificate on what is actually going on. Bizarre.
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.
I too do not see anything unsustainable about it. I just do not want to have any part of it. This may or may not be a good idea and there is a rational argument to be had about it. One thing we may have to deal with in the future is a more monolithic Europe on our doorstep with a strong successful currency. Alternatively it could lead to a weaker Europe. Arguably neither of these things could be good for the UK.
But as we have the pound not the euro and I think it fair to say we do not want an ever closer union there is an inevitablity of renegotiations. Personally I would not like to see Miliband anywhere near any negotiations.
I've just realised that in my modified "cunning plan" - Operation stab the French in the back - we'd have the German army bogged down in the winter wonderland of a Russian freeze, and we'd be sharing the Atlantic ports with Austria/Hungary - the Softy Walter of the group.
And we'd have Johnny Turk on our side, so no Balfour Declaration and no Gaza.
But as we have the pound not the euro and I think it fair to say we do not want an ever closer union there is an inevitablity of renegotiations. Personally I would not like to see Miliband anywhere near any negotiations.
You want to be outside the Euro, you're already outside the Euro, you have no obligation to join the Euro. What is there to renegotiate?
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?
What an absolute pillock , you say Ireland worked out to do it and that was by using the pound. Turnip of the day award to you if only Scott was not posting.
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.
Dear Dear , we are scraping the barrel for loons today, what rock did you crawl out from under. You would make a bottom feeder look intelligent.
Oops, I guess that could sound a bit contradictory - To clarify, I wasn't paying much attention and forgot that fact that I should have remembered (having got all my info from this period from I, Caudius).
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.
Caracalla, his son and successor (technically one of two, although he did murder his younger brother), was present with him.
Caracalla was notable for being violent and for developing the not very clever habit of threatening to kill his own bodyguards, which turned out to rather curtail his reign.
I've just realised that in my modified "cunning plan" - Operation stab the French in the back - we'd have the German army bogged down in the winter wonderland of a Russian freeze, and we'd be sharing the Atlantic ports with Austria/Hungary - the Softy Walter of the group.
And we'd have Johnny Turk on our side, so no Balfour Declaration and no Gaza.
This rewriting history is easy!
When you've done that how about Henry V doesn't die young - the Treaty of Troyes is fully enforced...
A FEW EVENINGS before the STV referendum debate, I shared a platform in Portree with Professor Ronald MacDonald, distinguished son of Skye and a globally recognised expert on currency and exchange rates, regularly listed in the top 1 per cent of the world’s economists.
The 60 souls who had foregone the joys of a summer evening to worry over Scotland’s constitutional future heard a prescient message, soon to be shared by 1.7 million viewers. In the professor’s view, the Scottish Nationalists’ decision to insist there would be a currency union with the UK (continuing) was their “biggest mistake of all” and “will be their ultimate undoing”.
@adrianmcmenamin: Looking at Survation poll details - more '11 SNP voters 'no' than Labour 'yes' - both proportionally and absolutely http://t.co/yXLyEgGWSD
Alex Salmond has been warned he needs a "seismic" turnaround for Scotland to back his plan for independence after his bruising TV debate with Alistair Darling.
The Scottish First Minister saw support for independence slump after he was put on the spot on his currency plan by former Chancellor Mr Darling, who is leading the pro-union Better Together campaign.
A Survation poll in the Scottish Daily Mail 50 percent of respondents planned to vote against independence - whilst support for breaking away from the UK fell away to just 37 per cent. Thirteen per cent of voters said they were still undecided.
Chief Executive of Survation Damian Lowe warned the 'yes' campaign would now need a "seismic change" in fortunes in order to win.
What an absolute pillock , you say Ireland worked out to do it and that was by using the pound. Turnip of the day award to you if only Scott was not posting.
Do you genuinely not know that Ireland had its own currency from 1926/7 onwards? It was called the pound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_pound ) but it was not GBP.
What an absolute pillock , you say Ireland worked out to do it and that was by using the pound. Turnip of the day award to you if only Scott was not posting.
Do you genuinely not know that Ireland had its own currency from 1926/7 onwards? It was called the pound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_pound ) but it was not GBP.
Wasn't it called the "punt"? Or was that just pronunciation?
What an absolute pillock , you say Ireland worked out to do it and that was by using the pound. Turnip of the day award to you if only Scott was not posting.
Do you genuinely not know that Ireland had its own currency from 1926/7 onwards? It was called the pound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_pound ) but it was not GBP.
Wasn't it called the "punt"? Or was that just pronunciation?
Further to my earlier post I recall, back around 1970, that I could buy drink in an Irish pub with a £1 note, but it was worth slightly more than an Irish one.However, the change was given on the basis of equivalence! Consequently the second pint cost more!
I suggest that might happen with the Scottish pound.
I saw that you logged on this morning but you were gone again before I could say, "Welcome back, you have been missed". Now that you have posted again can I say, Welcome back, you have been missed and I hope you will stay with us. Life on line is still part of life (chatting to people down the pub is no more real that chatting to people on line) and we need more engineering, and railway, views on here.
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.
And two hours later the answer is "no".
My cricketing forecasts are in danger of legendary status, almost on a par with Southam Observer's forecasts in American politics. I was careful to put in the India "self destruct" qualification on this occasion but I really did not expect that (again).
I have tickets for the Oval. Thankfully they are for the second day so we have a reasonable chance of a full day's play, weather permitting. This has to be the worst Indian side I can recall, especially on the batting side. What would they give for "the wall" Dravid?
What an absolute pillock , you say Ireland worked out to do it and that was by using the pound. Turnip of the day award to you if only Scott was not posting.
Do you genuinely not know that Ireland had its own currency from 1926/7 onwards? It was called the pound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_pound ) but it was not GBP.
Wasn't it called the "punt"? Or was that just pronunciation?
I may be wrong (where is Neil when we need him) but I think punt was Irish for pound.
It is also significant that this arrangement worked quite well for a largely agrarian economy which was dedicated to trade with the UK in very large part. As the Irish economy developed the link between the punt and the pound could no longer be sustained. Scotland of course has an extremely well developed and very important financial services industry. If there is an economy in the world like that using someone else's currency I would love to hear of it.
I've just realised that in my modified "cunning plan" - Operation stab the French in the back - we'd have the German army bogged down in the winter wonderland of a Russian freeze, and we'd be sharing the Atlantic ports with Austria/Hungary - the Softy Walter of the group.
And we'd have Johnny Turk on our side, so no Balfour Declaration and no Gaza.
This rewriting history is easy!
When you've done that how about Henry V doesn't die young - the Treaty of Troyes is fully enforced...
Good heavens, Mr Charles, that really opens a can of worms. I am not very good at this alternative history lark, I have enough trouble sorting out what did happen never mind what might have happened (Andy Cooke, occasional gent of this parish, is your man for alternative history he has the imagination for it).
However, if Henry V had lived the normal span I don't actually think too much would have changed. The treaty was signed by a French King who was clearly off his head, as so many of them were and the "rebellion" of his son would have continued regardless. Henry might have held it down for longer but the end result would have been the same.
Edward III's claim to to the French throne was valid but a bit thin and not acceptable to the people that mattered in France. There is no way on God's clean earth that the majority of Frogs would accept an Englishman ruling over them.
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.
And two hours later the answer is "no".
My cricketing forecasts are in danger of legendary status, almost on a par with Southam Observer's forecasts in American politics. I was careful to put in the India "self destruct" qualification on this occasion but I really did not expect that (again).
I have tickets for the Oval. Thankfully they are for the second day so we have a reasonable chance of a full day's play, weather permitting. This has to be the worst Indian side I can recall, especially on the batting side. What would they give for "the wall" Dravid?
I've just realised that in my modified "cunning plan" - Operation stab the French in the back - we'd have the German army bogged down in the winter wonderland of a Russian freeze, and we'd be sharing the Atlantic ports with Austria/Hungary - the Softy Walter of the group.
And we'd have Johnny Turk on our side, so no Balfour Declaration and no Gaza.
This rewriting history is easy!
When you've done that how about Henry V doesn't die young - the Treaty of Troyes is fully enforced...
Good heavens, Mr Charles, that really opens a can of worms. I am not very good at this alternative history lark, I have enough trouble sorting out what did happen never mind what might have happened (Andy Cooke, occasional gent of this parish, is your man for alternative history he has the imagination for it).
However, if Henry V had lived the normal span I don't actually think too much would have changed. The treaty was signed by a French King who was clearly off his head, as so many of them were and the "rebellion" of his son would have continued regardless. Henry might have held it down for longer but the end result would have been the same.
Edward III's claim to to the French throne was valid but a bit thin and not acceptable to the people that mattered in France. There is no way on God's clean earth that the majority of Frogs would accept an Englishman ruling over them.
The interesting question is the effect it would have had on politics in England. Would Henry VI have been a different King if he had succeeded to the throne in adulthood rather than at 9 months old? Would the Wars of the Roses and the subsequent Tudor victory never have happened? Which means no Reformation? No Elizabeth?
Henry V surviving until his son reached maturity is one of the crucial alternative points in English history.
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.
And two hours later the answer is "no".
My cricketing forecasts are in danger of legendary status, almost on a par with Southam Observer's forecasts in American politics. I was careful to put in the India "self destruct" qualification on this occasion but I really did not expect that (again).
I have tickets for the Oval. Thankfully they are for the second day so we have a reasonable chance of a full day's play, weather permitting. This has to be the worst Indian side I can recall, especially on the batting side. What would they give for "the wall" Dravid?
The Indians have won one of the Tests though.
True. At the time that looked a shockingly poor performance from a demoralised side. With the benefit of hindsight that looks an extremely generous assessment.
I was a great admirer of Prior but Buttler looks like he can provide a different dimension to England with the ability to go for the throat when the opportunity presents itself (like in the last match) or grind it out (like here). And Ballance and Root are going to be competitors for Captain in a few years 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.
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?
Having just seen Leicester City beat mid table Werder Bremen (who beat Chelsea 3:0 last week) we do not need to envy the Bundesliga.
I've just realised that in my modified "cunning plan" - Operation stab the French in the back - we'd have the German army bogged down in the winter wonderland of a Russian freeze, and we'd be sharing the Atlantic ports with Austria/Hungary - the Softy Walter of the group.
And we'd have Johnny Turk on our side, so no Balfour Declaration and no Gaza.
This rewriting history is easy!
When you've done that how about Henry V doesn't die young - the Treaty of Troyes is fully enforced...
Good heavens, Mr Charles, that really opens a can of worms. I am not very good at this alternative history lark, I have enough trouble sorting out what did happen never mind what might have happened (Andy Cooke, occasional gent of this parish, is your man for alternative history he has the imagination for it).
However, if Henry V had lived the normal span I don't actually think too much would have changed. The treaty was signed by a French King who was clearly off his head, as so many of them were and the "rebellion" of his son would have continued regardless. Henry might have held it down for longer but the end result would have been the same.
Edward III's claim to to the French throne was valid but a bit thin and not acceptable to the people that mattered in France. There is no way on God's clean earth that the majority of Frogs would accept an Englishman ruling over them.
The interesting question is the effect it would have had on politics in England. Would Henry VI have been a different King if he had succeeded to the throne in adulthood rather than at 9 months old? Would the Wars of the Roses and the subsequent Tudor victory never have happened? Which means no Reformation? No Elizabeth?
Henry V surviving until his son reached maturity is one of the crucial alternative points in English history.
I don't think Henry VI would ever have been a "strong" king!
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.
And two hours later the answer is "no".
My cricketing forecasts are in danger of legendary status, almost on a par with Southam Observer's forecasts in American politics. I was careful to put in the India "self destruct" qualification on this occasion but I really did not expect that (again).
I have tickets for the Oval. Thankfully they are for the second day so we have a reasonable chance of a full day's play, weather permitting. This has to be the worst Indian side I can recall, especially on the batting side. What would they give for "the wall" Dravid?
The Indians have won one of the Tests though.
True. At the time that looked a shockingly poor performance from a demoralised side. With the benefit of hindsight that looks an extremely generous assessment.
I was a great admirer of Prior but Buttler looks like he can provide a different dimension to England with the ability to go for the throat when the opportunity presents itself (like in the last match) or grind it out (like here). And Ballance and Root are going to be competitors for Captain in a few years time.
As an Essex man, Mr L I am constantly amazed that Foster is consistently overlooked as England wicketkeeper. There isn't a better in English cricket.
I've just realised that in my modified "cunning plan" - Operation stab the French in the back - we'd have the German army bogged down in the winter wonderland of a Russian freeze, and we'd be sharing the Atlantic ports with Austria/Hungary - the Softy Walter of the group.
And we'd have Johnny Turk on our side, so no Balfour Declaration and no Gaza.
This rewriting history is easy!
When you've done that how about Henry V doesn't die young - the Treaty of Troyes is fully enforced...
Good heavens, Mr Charles, that really opens a can of worms. I am not very good at this alternative history lark, I have enough trouble sorting out what did happen never mind what might have happened (Andy Cooke, occasional gent of this parish, is your man for alternative history he has the imagination for it).
However, if Henry V had lived the normal span I don't actually think too much would have changed. The treaty was signed by a French King who was clearly off his head, as so many of them were and the "rebellion" of his son would have continued regardless. Henry might have held it down for longer but the end result would have been the same.
Edward III's claim to to the French throne was valid but a bit thin and not acceptable to the people that mattered in France. There is no way on God's clean earth that the majority of Frogs would accept an Englishman ruling over them.
The interesting question is the effect it would have had on politics in England. Would Henry VI have been a different King if he had succeeded to the throne in adulthood rather than at 9 months old? Would the Wars of the Roses and the subsequent Tudor victory never have happened? Which means no Reformation? No Elizabeth?
Henry V surviving until his son reached maturity is one of the crucial alternative points in English history.
I can't disagree, however Henry V's reputation might not have survived had he been driven out of France as I think he would have been eventually. So the whole basis of English politics would have changed. Would Henry VI been a different King? Almost certainly, its one thing growing up to be told your dad was a great warrior king who died before his time and another to grow up watching your Dad be gradually but definitely defeated. What difference that would have made? Well who can tell.
Henry VI was clearly off his head much of the time, all the inbreeding around the crowned heads of Europe would make a Pakistani family blush, so maybe the nature rather than the nurture side would win through regardless.
I've just realised that in my modified "cunning plan" - Operation stab the French in the back - we'd have the German army bogged down in the winter wonderland of a Russian freeze, and we'd be sharing the Atlantic ports with Austria/Hungary - the Softy Walter of the group.
And we'd have Johnny Turk on our side, so no Balfour Declaration and no Gaza.
This rewriting history is easy!
When you've done that how about Henry V doesn't die young - the Treaty of Troyes is fully enforced...
Good heavens, Mr Charles, that really opens a can of worms. I am not very good at this alternative history lark, I have enough trouble sorting out what did happen never mind what might have happened (Andy Cooke, occasional gent of this parish, is your man for alternative history he has the imagination for it).
However, if Henry V had lived the normal span I don't actually think too much would have changed. The treaty was signed by a French King who was clearly off his head, as so many of them were and the "rebellion" of his son would have continued regardless. Henry might have held it down for longer but the end result would have been the same.
Edward III's claim to to the French throne was valid but a bit thin and not acceptable to the people that mattered in France. There is no way on God's clean earth that the majority of Frogs would accept an Englishman ruling over them.
Well, not necessarily - don't forget that Burgundy and Brittany were both English allies, while Normandy, Maine and Anjou (as well as Gascony) were settled with English farmers and veterans. So I'm not sure that the general population would have really cared while nobles were in charge and collecting taxes.
You are right on the Dauphin point - but the supposition would have to be that Henry V was a more capable general than Suffolk &, of course, there would never have been the Treaty of Tours which gave him his opening. So it's more than likely that Henry V would have been able to defeat the "King of Bouyges" and secure the union of thrones.
Richard Tyndall makes a good point about Henry VI being a better King (and, of course, if he hadn't been King there would have been no Eton...). As for Elizabeth... well I suspect that Catherine Valois would never have married Owen Tudor, meaning no (legitimate) little Tudors to claim the throne...
edit: and, of course, we would never have enjoyed the delights of Margaret of Anjou, one of my favorite feminists
BTW - are you only interested in Indian history of WW1, or all history of the period. Found a (rather hagiographical) copy of the Poly magazine published just after my GG was killed at Ypres which I thought you might find of interest? Happy to email it over if you like.
I think those who doubt the ability of life to do exactly the opposite of what you expect should cite the current Test series as an example. From zero to hero in a couple of weeks for Allister Cook and it goes to show how even those calling the Scottish Independence debate done and dusted might yet be wrong.
If a week is a long time in politics, then a month or more is an eternity and as Nick Clegg will tell you winning one debate means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
On the currency issue, I've no real issue with an independent Scotland using the pound - of course, said independent state would be as much under the control of the BoE on interest rate policy as the people of East Ham are or the Irish Free State was but if that worked for Dublin then I suppose it could work for Edinburgh now but is that the measure of independence ?
I suppose it's down to definitions - one could argue there are very few truly independent countries on some measures,
What an absolute pillock , you say Ireland worked out to do it and that was by using the pound. Turnip of the day award to you if only Scott was not posting.
Do you genuinely not know that Ireland had its own currency from 1926/7 onwards? It was called the pound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_pound ) but it was not GBP.
Wasn't it called the "punt"? Or was that just pronunciation?
And the punt was pegged to the pound. As was the Irish economy. Then currencies floated and I seem to remember being in Dublin bars where everything was in two prices, pounds and punts. Pounds were very popular. But its a very simple question for a putative country to ask. What will be our currency? It does seem absurd for Salmond to peddle the line that he wants an end to the Union but wants to create a new (currency) one.
"I'm not sure that the general population would have really cared while nobles were in charge and collecting taxes."
Really there is a whole book to be written just on that topic alone. If I ever do get around to doing a PhD it will probably be on that sort of topic. You see the peasants in England really never were the sort of mindless serfs that your sentence suggests and they most certainly weren't by the reign of Henry V.
As to your WWI question, the Indians on the Western Front is definitely a near obsession of mine, but I am interested in anything to do with WWI. So please do send across what you have discovered. I think you have my email address, if not HurstLlama at Gmail dot com will find me.
Have just returned from a 12mile stroll on the tops of the hills in glorious sunshine and blackberries to eat and caught up with the thread.
Picking up on executive pay. There is tremendous variation - some companies offer a bonus on company performance for all employees - e.g. John Lewis where they are 'partners'. Other offer execs a mixture of salary, bonus and share options. Some share options are restricted to sale back to the company and not on the open market, whilst some bonuses (e.g.some banks) are based on the performance of several years.
However, there are definite weaknesses in the performance of non-executive directors who sit on remuneration committees. Too many are non-execs for several companies and at 20k-30k a pop are doing very nicely to rock too many boats. Also there is shortage of good chairpersons who do not view this role as a vocation and are good at guiding the board committees as well as having good foresight and awareness on both marketplace and global competition.
Globalisation has provided new opportunities for the best execs, but amalgamations and takeovers have resulted in more very large multinationals which are often not based in the UK.
Some of our promising younger execs have left multinationals to exploit a market niche, grow that company and either float it or sell to a multinational and so make more life-changing capital that way whilst their family is still young.
Finally it takes far more effort and inspiration to grow a profitable company than just spend taxpayers' money and so the attempt to justify high public sector salaries on the basis of equilisation is not valid.
You and your party and your leader have run out of ideas. True, not insults - but I know that that is Salmond's intention so I am not bothered. The SNP are a protest party not a real movement; they have flattered to deceive for a number of years. It is self evident that there is no serious desire for political independence in Scotland. None of which prevents Scotland presering its own identity which is worthy and valuable.
I knew I forgot something. Never did start the F1 review. I'll begin it now. I know you're all gagging for my detailed analysis of the F1 season to date. Nyoooooooooooom!
"I'm not sure that the general population would have really cared while nobles were in charge and collecting taxes."
Really there is a whole book to be written just on that topic alone. If I ever do get around to doing a PhD it will probably be on that sort of topic. You see the peasants in England really never were the sort of mindless serfs that your sentence suggests and they most certainly weren't by the reign of Henry V.
As to your WWI question, the Indians on the Western Front is definitely a near obsession of mine, but I am interested in anything to do with WWI. So please do send across what you have discovered. I think you have my email address, if not HurstLlama at Gmail dot com will find me.
Thanks
Didn't mean to imply they are mindless serfs, but more that their interaction with the local sheriff would have remained pretty much the same regardless of whether it was Henry or Henri on the throne. It just wasn't relevant to their day to day life, and I'm sure that there wouldn't have been any radical change in the system overnight.
What an absolute pillock , you say Ireland worked out to do it and that was by using the pound. Turnip of the day award to you if only Scott was not posting.
Do you genuinely not know that Ireland had its own currency from 1926/7 onwards? It was called the pound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_pound ) but it was not GBP.
Turnip head, we are keeping the pound , it is ours. Play with words however much you like POUND POUND POUND we are keeping it.
What an absolute pillock , you say Ireland worked out to do it and that was by using the pound. Turnip of the day award to you if only Scott was not posting.
Do you genuinely not know that Ireland had its own currency from 1926/7 onwards? It was called the pound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_pound ) but it was not GBP.
Turnip head, we are keeping the pound , it is ours. Play with words however much you like POUND POUND POUND we are keeping it.
We are keeping it because the Separatists lose the Independence Referendum. Enjoy your holiday, just don't water your beer too much with your crying.
"I'm not sure that the general population would have really cared while nobles were in charge and collecting taxes."
Really there is a whole book to be written just on that topic alone. If I ever do get around to doing a PhD it will probably be on that sort of topic. You see the peasants in England really never were the sort of mindless serfs that your sentence suggests and they most certainly weren't by the reign of Henry V.
As to your WWI question, the Indians on the Western Front is definitely a near obsession of mine, but I am interested in anything to do with WWI. So please do send across what you have discovered. I think you have my email address, if not HurstLlama at Gmail dot com will find me.
Thanks
Of course, a neater way to rewrite history is to have Richard III win the Battle of Bosworth. He nearly did in the last charge, in which Henry Tudor's Standard bearer was killed by Richard. Sir William Stanley intervened and saved Henry (it didn't do him too much good; he was eventually executed by Henry VII.
But if Richard had won, would there have been a reformation in England? what would have been our relations with Scotland? How good a King would he have been and what would have happened after his death?
Fun questions. I am interested as I am related to Sir Robert Brackenbury, who died at Richard's side and was his Constable of the Tower.
Comments
But as we have the pound not the euro and I think it fair to say we do not want an ever closer union there is an inevitablity of renegotiations. Personally I would not like to see Miliband anywhere near any negotiations.
I've just realised that in my modified "cunning plan" - Operation stab the French in the back - we'd have the German army bogged down in the winter wonderland of a Russian freeze, and we'd be sharing the Atlantic ports with Austria/Hungary - the Softy Walter of the group.
And we'd have Johnny Turk on our side, so no Balfour Declaration and no Gaza.
This rewriting history is easy!
Edited extra bit: cheers, Mr. G, for the answer [to another question].
Mr. Woolie, a cunning guess, and whilst he did make progress there there was a later chap.
Caracalla?
Ho hum
Mr. Briskin, there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repenteth etc. If only Mr. Eagles would be so open about his mistakes.
Edited extra bit: for the avoidance of doubt, I'm going by memory, I haven't googled or checked Wikipedia.
And no. To specify, I'm referring to Roman emperors.
Caracalla, his son and successor (technically one of two, although he did murder his younger brother), was present with him.
Caracalla was notable for being violent and for developing the not very clever habit of threatening to kill his own bodyguards, which turned out to rather curtail his reign.
Edited extra bit: although that does remind me I need to start on the old F1 review.
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 13m
The July votes average for council by-elections CON 28.3% LAB 27.1% UKIP 24.2% LDEM 9.7% GRNS 4%
And if F1 and the FIA pay any credence to safety, he should not be allowed anywhere near the sport.
(cue evil thought): unless it is a a barrier at La Source or La Piscine ...
And for added mind-bleach:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Y4LwCH_Oacg/UynGxwGG0qI/AAAAAAAAH54/4wYcnVUIe2E/s1600/briatore-original.jpg
Briatore's despicable.
"When you've done that how about Henry V doesn't die young - the Treaty of Troyes is fully enforced... "
Go easy, I'm only a beginner at this.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4171460.ece?CMP=SOC-Twitter-thetimes-28_07_2014-468-0-0-0
Con 277
Lab 305
Lib-Dem 33
UKIP 6
Labour 21 short of a majority and Lib-Lab pact viable.
I suggest that might happen with the Scottish pound.
I saw that you logged on this morning but you were gone again before I could say, "Welcome back, you have been missed". Now that you have posted again can I say, Welcome back, you have been missed and I hope you will stay with us. Life on line is still part of life (chatting to people down the pub is no more real that chatting to people on line) and we need more engineering, and railway, views on here.
I have tickets for the Oval. Thankfully they are for the second day so we have a reasonable chance of a full day's play, weather permitting. This has to be the worst Indian side I can recall, especially on the batting side. What would they give for "the wall" Dravid?
The news is screaming vote UKIP. Farage doesn't even have to campaign. The course of history is doing his campaigning for him.
It is also significant that this arrangement worked quite well for a largely agrarian economy which was dedicated to trade with the UK in very large part. As the Irish economy developed the link between the punt and the pound could no longer be sustained. Scotland of course has an extremely well developed and very important financial services industry. If there is an economy in the world like that using someone else's currency I would love to hear of it.
However, if Henry V had lived the normal span I don't actually think too much would have changed. The treaty was signed by a French King who was clearly off his head, as so many of them were and the "rebellion" of his son would have continued regardless. Henry might have held it down for longer but the end result would have been the same.
Edward III's claim to to the French throne was valid but a bit thin and not acceptable to the people that mattered in France. There is no way on God's clean earth that the majority of Frogs would accept an Englishman ruling over them.
Henry V surviving until his son reached maturity is one of the crucial alternative points in English history.
I was a great admirer of Prior but Buttler looks like he can provide a different dimension to England with the ability to go for the throat when the opportunity presents itself (like in the last match) or grind it out (like here). And Ballance and Root are going to be competitors for Captain in a few years time.
Henry VI was clearly off his head much of the time, all the inbreeding around the crowned heads of Europe would make a Pakistani family blush, so maybe the nature rather than the nurture side would win through regardless.
You are right on the Dauphin point - but the supposition would have to be that Henry V was a more capable general than Suffolk &, of course, there would never have been the Treaty of Tours which gave him his opening. So it's more than likely that Henry V would have been able to defeat the "King of Bouyges" and secure the union of thrones.
Richard Tyndall makes a good point about Henry VI being a better King (and, of course, if he hadn't been King there would have been no Eton...). As for Elizabeth... well I suspect that Catherine Valois would never have married Owen Tudor, meaning no (legitimate) little Tudors to claim the throne...
edit: and, of course, we would never have enjoyed the delights of Margaret of Anjou, one of my favorite feminists
BTW - are you only interested in Indian history of WW1, or all history of the period. Found a (rather hagiographical) copy of the Poly magazine published just after my GG was killed at Ypres which I thought you might find of interest? Happy to email it over if you like.
I think those who doubt the ability of life to do exactly the opposite of what you expect should cite the current Test series as an example. From zero to hero in a couple of weeks for Allister Cook and it goes to show how even those calling the Scottish Independence debate done and dusted might yet be wrong.
If a week is a long time in politics, then a month or more is an eternity and as Nick Clegg will tell you winning one debate means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
On the currency issue, I've no real issue with an independent Scotland using the pound - of course, said independent state would be as much under the control of the BoE on interest rate policy as the people of East Ham are or the Irish Free State was but if that worked for Dublin then I suppose it could work for Edinburgh now but is that the measure of independence ?
I suppose it's down to definitions - one could argue there are very few truly independent countries on some measures,
But its a very simple question for a putative country to ask. What will be our currency? It does seem absurd for Salmond to peddle the line that he wants an end to the Union but wants to create a new (currency) one.
"I'm not sure that the general population would have really cared while nobles were in charge and collecting taxes."
Really there is a whole book to be written just on that topic alone. If I ever do get around to doing a PhD it will probably be on that sort of topic. You see the peasants in England really never were the sort of mindless serfs that your sentence suggests and they most certainly weren't by the reign of Henry V.
As to your WWI question, the Indians on the Western Front is definitely a near obsession of mine, but I am interested in anything to do with WWI. So please do send across what you have discovered. I think you have my email address, if not HurstLlama at Gmail dot com will find me.
Thanks
Picking up on executive pay. There is tremendous variation - some companies offer a bonus on company performance for all employees - e.g. John Lewis where they are 'partners'. Other offer execs a mixture of salary, bonus and share options. Some share options are restricted to sale back to the company and not on the open market, whilst some bonuses (e.g.some banks) are based on the performance of several years.
However, there are definite weaknesses in the performance of non-executive directors who sit on remuneration committees. Too many are non-execs for several companies and at 20k-30k a pop are doing very nicely to rock too many boats. Also there is shortage of good chairpersons who do not view this role as a vocation and are good at guiding the board committees as well as having good foresight and awareness on both marketplace and global competition.
Globalisation has provided new opportunities for the best execs, but amalgamations and takeovers have resulted in more very large multinationals which are often not based in the UK.
Some of our promising younger execs have left multinationals to exploit a market niche, grow that company and either float it or sell to a multinational and so make more life-changing capital that way whilst their family is still young.
Finally it takes far more effort and inspiration to grow a profitable company than just spend taxpayers' money and so the attempt to justify high public sector salaries on the basis of equilisation is not valid.
You and your party and your leader have run out of ideas. True, not insults - but I know that that is Salmond's intention so I am not bothered. The SNP are a protest party not a real movement; they have flattered to deceive for a number of years. It is self evident that there is no serious desire for political independence in Scotland. None of which prevents Scotland presering its own identity which is worthy and valuable.
I knew I forgot something. Never did start the F1 review. I'll begin it now. I know you're all gagging for my detailed analysis of the F1 season to date. Nyoooooooooooom!
http://www.scotlandnow.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/video-english-comedian-russell-brand-4023925#.U-XvVLYIBCo.twitter
[Saw a recent Top Gear, which asserted the country has more corporations than people].
And Panama has one of the largest merchant navies, The one with lower standards always wins out in the end.
But if Richard had won, would there have been a reformation in England? what would have been our relations with Scotland? How good a King would he have been and what would have happened after his death?
Fun questions. I am interested as I am related to Sir Robert Brackenbury, who died at Richard's side and was his Constable of the Tower.