The complications and the costs of the later just don't seem to have been thought about.
Or they have thought about it and you just arent aware of their thinking?
Have you, for example, read what the Scottish Government's white paper says about the DVLA?
Yes I have. Wishful thinking, waffle and no mention of costs or the practicalities. In an nutshell it says rUk will let us carry on on using their system until such time as we produce our better, streamlined system. That is not even the basis for negotiation let alone settlement.
It's not the rUK's system. It's a UK system. Paid for in part by Scottish users. It makes eminent sense for the system to continue as is for both parties. Why would the rUK want to see an 8% (or so) drop in income on independence? Wouldnt they want to manage the transition in Swansea as much as possible? In any case what gives the rUK exclusive rights to the systems there? Hasnt it been paid for by users on both sides of a future border?
Why would we want to manage a foreign country's registration process ? Makes no sense at all. For a start off what happens when DVLA have to accept a foreign currency ?
The complications and the costs of the later just don't seem to have been thought about.
Or they have thought about it and you just arent aware of their thinking?
Have you, for example, read what the Scottish Government's white paper says about the DVLA?
Yes I have. Wishful thinking, waffle and no mention of costs or the practicalities. In an nutshell it says rUk will let us carry on on using their system until such time as we produce our better, streamlined system. That is not even the basis for negotiation let alone settlement.
It's not the rUK's system. It's a UK system. Paid for in part by Scottish users. It makes eminent sense for the system to continue as is for both parties. Why would the rUK want to see an 8% (or so) drop in income on independence? Wouldnt they want to manage the transition in Swansea as much as possible? In any case what gives the rUK exclusive rights to the systems there? Hasnt it been paid for by users on both sides of a future border?
This was explained quite well here a while back, I forget by whom. It doesn't necessarily belong to the rUK, but by the same token, neither does any UK asset based north of the border necessarily belong to Scotland. So Scotland could claim its 8% of Swansea, and rUK would claim it's 92% of Holyrood, and everything else.
LOL, the 8% of Swansea would be worth 100 times the 92% of Holyrood
The complications and the costs of the later just don't seem to have been thought about.
Or they have thought about it and you just arent aware of their thinking?
Have you, for example, read what the Scottish Government's white paper says about the DVLA?
Yes I have. Wishful thinking, waffle and no mention of costs or the practicalities. In an nutshell it says rUk will let us carry on on using their system until such time as we produce our better, streamlined system. That is not even the basis for negotiation let alone settlement.
It's not the rUK's system. It's a UK system. Paid for in part by Scottish users. It makes eminent sense for the system to continue as is for both parties. Why would the rUK want to see an 8% (or so) drop in income on independence? Wouldnt they want to manage the transition in Swansea as much as possible? In any case what gives the rUK exclusive rights to the systems there? Hasnt it been paid for by users on both sides of a future border?
Why would we want to manage a foreign country's registration process ? Makes no sense at all. For a start off what happens when DVLA have to accept a foreign currency ?
LOL, you turned all Little Englander Alan.
Little Irelander malc, the little englanders are all those nats who can't let go of mummy's skirt. If you want to govern yourselves quit dicking around.
The complications and the costs of the later just don't seem to have been thought about.
Or they have thought about it and you just arent aware of their thinking?
Have you, for example, read what the Scottish Government's white paper says about the DVLA?
Yes I have. Wishful thinking, waffle and no mention of costs or the practicalities. In an nutshell it says rUk will let us carry on on using their system until such time as we produce our better, streamlined system. That is not even the basis for negotiation let alone settlement.
It's not the rUK's system. It's a UK system. Paid for in part by Scottish users. It makes eminent sense for the system to continue as is for both parties. Why would the rUK want to see an 8% (or so) drop in income on independence? Wouldnt they want to manage the transition in Swansea as much as possible? In any case what gives the rUK exclusive rights to the systems there? Hasnt it been paid for by users on both sides of a future border?
Why would we want to manage a foreign country's registration process ? Makes no sense at all. For a start off what happens when DVLA have to accept a foreign currency ?
Because it would help you manage the drop off in the DVLA's income. Instead of having to cut down on overheads by 8% immediately you could do so over the period it takes for the Scottish Government to set up its own agency. In any case it's not entirely your agency as the systems etc. have been paid for in part by Scottish taxpayers / users. What is proposed in the Scottish Government's white paper seems eminently sensible and fair to me, why a rUK negotiating body would take time to argue something else is beyond me.
You're missing the point of Pointless. It's a variety show interrupted by questions to provide amusement. I'm sure they have an audition process - not too may quizzers and load the show with giggly, cheerful people to provide material for Private Eye's "Dumb Britain".
The level of knowledge is low in general. Especially on science and politics. My all time favourites "Name an American state?" Two answers .... Mexico and Houston. And on the Celebrity version .... "Who was on the British throne in 1900?" "Er ... Margaret Thatcher?"
I still think there is a slight tendency in England to underestimate the implications of Scottish independence. The results would not just be cataclysmic for Scotland.
How stable would rUK be with England even more dominant? It would be the end of one of the more successful countries over the last 300 years. Anyone who thinks it would be BAU is deceiving themselves.
We get it, David. Especially English Tories are super pro-Union (clue being in the name, etc) but sometimes we get so irritated by the antics of the Cybernats (and the real life ones also for that matter) that in our weak moments we think: ok then go on just f**k off.
What is also mildly galling is the disingenuousness of ASalmond et al. For god's sake just say: we haven't got a flying f**k about what's going to happen, currency, defence, budget, etc but WE WILL BE FREE. But instead he tries to bluff the way and diminishes himself and the cause in so doing.
(Apologies about the use of the word "f**k". Twice.)
Topping , he has to be careful due to not wanting to upset all the fearties. It is certainly bizzare that it is not over 90% for YES and makes me wonder what these people voting NO are thinking. I understand the rich people like DavidL on here , who are doing exceedingly well and don't want the boat rocked, even Darling as he trousers £300k + a year but why any normal person is not 100% YES is fairly unbelievable. Rather let someone 500 miles away make all their decisions for them , utterly pathetic.
But what are the fearties going to get upset about? It's a pretty binary option: independent, not independent. Surely there aren't shades of it whereby some degree of independence would not scare the horses?
To me the most disappointing thing was the (was it?) £500 argument. Were/are people really ready to change the fundamental nature and make-up of their country over 500 quid?
The complications and the costs of the later just don't seem to have been thought about.
Or they have thought about it and you just arent aware of their thinking?
Have you, for example, read what the Scottish Government's white paper says about the DVLA?
Yes I have. Wishful thinking, waffle and no mention of costs or the practicalities. In an nutshell it says rUk will let us carry on on using their system until such time as we produce our better, streamlined system. That is not even the basis for negotiation let alone settlement.
It's not the rUK's system. It's a UK system. Paid for in part by Scottish users. It makes eminent sense for the system to continue as is for both parties. Why would the rUK want to see an 8% (or so) drop in income on independence? Wouldnt they want to manage the transition in Swansea as much as possible? In any case what gives the rUK exclusive rights to the systems there? Hasnt it been paid for by users on both sides of a future border?
Why would we want to manage a foreign country's registration process ? Makes no sense at all. For a start off what happens when DVLA have to accept a foreign currency ?
Because it would help you manage the drop off in the DVLA's income. Instead of having to cut down on overheads by 8% immediately you could do so over the period it takes for the Scottish Government to set up its own agency. In any case it's not entirely your agency as the systems etc. have been paid for in part by Scottish taxpayers / users. What is proposed in the Scottish Government's white paper seems eminently sensible and fair to me, why a rUK negotiating body would take time to argue something else is beyond me.
Fking twaddle Neil. DVLA isn't a commercial body it's an arm of government, otherwise why aren't they doing registrations for Ireland or France ? If we have to cut the bill so be it, but in reality civil service jobs will simply redeploy either side of the border. My taxes are currently collected in Cumbernauld post Indy there's some work for someone in Swansea.
If Salmond hasn't thought through how iScotland will work it simply shows he's the arse people think.
The complications and the costs of the later just don't seem to have been thought about.
Or they have thought about it and you just arent aware of their thinking?
Have you, for example, read what the Scottish Government's white paper says about the DVLA?
Yes I have. Wishful thinking, waffle and no mention of costs or the practicalities. In an nutshell it says rUk will let us carry on on using their system until such time as we produce our better, streamlined system. That is not even the basis for negotiation let alone settlement.
It's not the rUK's system. It's a UK system. Paid for in part by Scottish users. It makes eminent sense for the system to continue as is for both parties. Why would the rUK want to see an 8% (or so) drop in income on independence? Wouldnt they want to manage the transition in Swansea as much as possible? In any case what gives the rUK exclusive rights to the systems there? Hasnt it been paid for by users on both sides of a future border?
Why would we want to manage a foreign country's registration process ? Makes no sense at all. For a start off what happens when DVLA have to accept a foreign currency ?
LOL, you turned all Little Englander Alan.
Little Irelander malc, the little englanders are all those nats who can't let go of mummy's skirt. If you want to govern yourselves quit dicking around.
Hopefully there will be enough people with the cojones to do just that.
I still think there is a slight tendency in England to underestimate the implications of Scottish independence. The results would not just be cataclysmic for Scotland.
How stable would rUK be with England even more dominant? It would be the end of one of the more successful countries over the last 300 years. Anyone who thinks it would be BAU is deceiving themselves.
We get it, David. Especially English Tories are super pro-Union (clue being in the name, etc) but sometimes we get so irritated by the antics of the Cybernats (and the real life ones also for that matter) that in our weak moments we think: ok then go on just f**k off.
What is also mildly galling is the disingenuousness of ASalmond et al. For god's sake just say: we haven't got a flying f**k about what's going to happen, currency, defence, budget, etc but WE WILL BE FREE. But instead he tries to bluff the way and diminishes himself and the cause in so doing.
(Apologies about the use of the word "f**k". Twice.)
Topping , he has to be careful due to not wanting to upset all the fearties. It is certainly bizzare that it is not over 90% for YES and makes me wonder what these people voting NO are thinking. I understand the rich people like DavidL on here , who are doing exceedingly well and don't want the boat rocked, even Darling as he trousers £300k + a year but why any normal person is not 100% YES is fairly unbelievable. Rather let someone 500 miles away make all their decisions for them , utterly pathetic.
But what are the fearties going to get upset about? It's a pretty binary option: independent, not independent. Surely there aren't shades of it whereby some degree of independence would not scare the horses?
To me the most disappointing thing was the (was it?) £500 argument. Were/are people really ready to change the fundamental nature and make-up of their country over 500 quid?
Topping , You are preaching to the converted , I cannot imagine why it is not a huge YES lead and obvious what result is , beggars belief. Can only imagine it is like Stockholm syndrome or having been in an institution for long time and they are so scared they cannot think for themselves.
The complications and the costs of the later just don't seem to have been thought about.
Or they have thought about it and you just arent aware of their thinking?
Have you, for example, read what the Scottish Government's white paper says about the DVLA?
Yes I have. Wishful thinking, waffle and no mention of costs or the practicalities. In an nutshell it says rUk will let us carry on on using their system until such time as we produce our better, streamlined system. That is not even the basis for negotiation let alone settlement.
It's not the rUK's system. It's a UK system. Paid for in part by Scottish users. It makes eminent sense for the system to continue as is for both parties. Why would the rUK want to see an 8% (or so) drop in income on independence? Wouldnt they want to manage the transition in Swansea as much as possible? In any case what gives the rUK exclusive rights to the systems there? Hasnt it been paid for by users on both sides of a future border?
Why would we want to manage a foreign country's registration process ? Makes no sense at all. For a start off what happens when DVLA have to accept a foreign currency ?
Because it would help you manage the drop off in the DVLA's income. Instead of having to cut down on overheads by 8% immediately you could do so over the period it takes for the Scottish Government to set up its own agency. In any case it's not entirely your agency as the systems etc. have been paid for in part by Scottish taxpayers / users. What is proposed in the Scottish Government's white paper seems eminently sensible and fair to me, why a rUK negotiating body would take time to argue something else is beyond me.
Fking twaddle Neil. DVLA isn't a commercial body it's an arm of government, otherwise why aren't they doing registrations for Ireland or France ? If we have to cut the bill so be it, but in reality civil service jobs will simply redeploy either side of the border. My taxes are currently collected in Cumbernauld post Indy there's some work for someone in Swansea.
If Salmond hasn't thought through how iScotland will work it simply shows he's the arse people think.
That is rubbish Alan , there will be things both side of the border that could move. I bet you there are more jobs that would move north than would head south. It will be in rumps interest to keep them. SNP have clearly stated how they would run an independent Scotland, you are letting your personal hatred get the better of your judgement.
A practical timetable to independence that dovetails with the political calendar would be something like:
9/14 yes vote for independence to 5/15 UK parties put forward their approach to negotiating on behalf of rUK with Tories explaining interplay with EU renegotiations and referendum and Labour explaining how they would whip Scottish MPs to support UK independence legislation 5/15 UK government formed 5/15 to 2017 negotiation of principle terms and transitional arrangements 2017 to 5/2020 Pre-Independence Day implementation 5/2020 Independence Day and UK GE without Scottish seats 2020 onwards Post-independence implementation 2020 - 2025 Currency Union (traded for extra time to relocate Trident) 2025 Scottish currency launched (unless EU joined and Euro adopted)
The complications and the costs of the later just don't seem to have been thought about.
Or they have thought about it and you just arent aware of their thinking?
Have you, for example, read what the Scottish Government's white paper says about the DVLA?
Yes I have. Wishful thinking, waffle and no mention of costs or the practicalities. In an nutshell it says rUk will let us carry on on using their system until such time as we produce our better, streamlined system. That is not even the basis for negotiation let alone settlement.
It's not the rUK's system. It's a UK system. Paid for in part by Scottish users. It makes eminent e rights to the systems there? Hasnt it been paid for by users on both sides of a future border?
Why would we want to manage a foreign country's registration process ? Makes no sense at all. For a start off what happens when DVLA have to accept a foreign currency ?
Because it would help you manage the drop off in the DVLA's income. Instead of having to cut y a rUK negotiating body would take time to argue something else is beyond me.
Fking twaddle Neil. DVLA isn't a commercial body it's an arm of government, otherwise why aren't they doing registrations for Ireland or France ? If we have to cut the bill so be it, but in reality civil service jobs will simply redeploy either side of the border. My taxes are currently collected in Cumbernauld post Indy there's some work for someone in Swansea.
If Salmond hasn't thought through how iScotland will work it simply shows he's the arse people think.
That is rubbish Alan , there will be things both side of the border that could move. I bet you there are more jobs that would move north than would head south. It will be in rumps interest to keep them. SNP have clearly stated how they would run an independent Scotland, you are letting your personal hatred get the better of your judgement.
LOL keep hoping malc.
I've already pointed out jobs will move both ways and if that means we have fewer civil servants here so be it, we appear to be creating jobs to absorb the slack.
On the other hand with the excess of jobs moving north, how are you going to pay for them all ?
I still think there is a slight tendency in England to underestimate the implications of Scottish independence. The results would not just be cataclysmic for Scotland.
How stable would rUK be with England even more dominant? It would be the end of one of the more successful countries over the last 300 years. Anyone who thinks it would be BAU is deceiving themselves.
We get it, David. Especially English Tories are super pro-Union (clue being in the name, etc) but sometimes we get so irritated by the antics of the Cybernats (and the real life ones also for that matter) that in our weak moments we think: ok then go on just f**k off.
What is also mildly galling is the disingenuousness of ASalmond et al. For god's sake just say: we haven't got a flying f**k about what's going to happen, currency, defence, budget, etc but WE WILL BE FREE. But instead he tries to bluff the way and diminishes himself and the cause in so doing.
(Apologies about the use of the word "f**k". Twice.)
Topping , he has to be careful due to not wanting to upset all the fearties. It is certainly bizzare that it is not over 90% for YES and makes me wonder what these people voting NO are thinking. I understand the rich people like DavidL on here , who are doing exceedingly well and don't want the boat rocked, even Darling as he trousers £300k + a year but why any normal person is not 100% YES is fairly unbelievable. Rather let someone 500 miles away make all their decisions for them , utterly pathetic.
But what are the fearties going to get upset about? It's a pretty binary option: independent, not independent. Surely there aren't shades of it whereby some degree of independence would not scare the horses?
To me the most disappointing thing was the (was it?) £500 argument. Were/are people really ready to change the fundamental nature and make-up of their country over 500 quid?
Topping , You are preaching to the converted , I cannot imagine why it is not a huge YES lead and obvious what result is , beggars belief. Can only imagine it is like Stockholm syndrome or having been in an institution for long time and they are so scared they cannot think for themselves.
Either Scotland should be independent, or it should be part of the UK. There are good arguments on each side.
'Back to the Future' star Michael J fox has been 'battling' Parkinson's for over a decade - hardly an reason for topping yourself.
The decision to commit suicide is, almost by definition, an irrationale act.
Who knows what may be a sufficient reason for anyone of us to take that step? I could well imagine that learning you have an incurable illness could be manageable for someone and devasting for another.
I can finally add something to the Scottish debate - a few years ago the question came up on PB - what does the phrase "on the brew" derive from. I met today a very old scotsman who says the phrase is "on the borough".
'Back to the Future' star Michael J fox has been 'battling' Parkinson's for over a decade - hardly an reason for topping yourself.
Classy
Jeremy Thorpe, the former Liberal leader, was diagnosed with Parkinsons shortly after his acquittal in 1979. While apparently he did not seem at all “well" the last I heard of him from an eye-witness 15+ years ago he attended Roy Jenkins funeral in 2003, and of course his wife’s earlier this year.
'Back to the Future' star Michael J fox has been 'battling' Parkinson's for over a decade - hardly an reason for topping yourself.
The decision to commit suicide is, almost by definition, an irrationale act.
Who knows what may be a sufficient reason for anyone of us to take that step? I could well imagine that learning you have an incurable illness could be manageable for someone and devasting for another.
Very true. Especially for someone who was also a depressive!
OT Are the Yorkshire police really so short of things to do that they can afford to send ten police officers in five cars to search the house of a seventy three year old ex pop singer accused of whispering sweet nothings to a boy thirty years ago?
And which policeman tipped the press off without even informing the owner of the house they rifled and how much did they get paid?.
We live in a sick McCarthyite society so we better get used to it
OT Are the Yorkshire police really so short of things to do that they can afford to send ten police officers in five cars to search the house of a seventy three year old ex pop singer accused of whispering sweet nothings to a boy thirty years ago?
And which policeman tipped the press off without even informing the owner of the house they rifled and how much did they get paid?.
We live in a sick McCarthyite society so we better get used to it
Aw dedums. 'the establisment' - yeah. Like none of the other parties have have panorama chasing after them. What a sad pathetic weasling chip UKIP have on their shoulders.
OT Are the Yorkshire police really so short of things to do that they can afford to send ten police officers in five cars to search the house of a seventy three year old ex pop singer accused of whispering sweet nothings to a boy thirty years ago?
And which policeman tipped the press off without even informing the owner of the house they rifled and how much did they get paid?.
We live in a sick McCarthyite society so we better get used to it
OT Are the Yorkshire police really so short of things to do that they can afford to send ten police officers in five cars to search the house of a seventy three year old ex pop singer accused of whispering sweet nothings to a boy thirty years ago?
And which policeman tipped the press off without even informing the owner of the house they rifled and how much did they get paid?.
We live in a sick McCarthyite society so we better get used to it
Over the years South Yorkshire Police haven’t exactly covered themserlves with glory, have they!
'Back to the Future' star Michael J fox has been 'battling' Parkinson's for over a decade - hardly an reason for topping yourself.
Classy
Jeremy Thorpe, the former Liberal leader, was diagnosed with Parkinsons shortly after his acquittal in 1979. While apparently he did not seem at all “well" the last I heard of him from an eye-witness 15+ years ago he attended Roy Jenkins funeral in 2003, and of course his wife’s earlier this year.
Sir Robert Smith, Bt. LD MP was diagnosed in 2014 with Parkinson's disease, but intends to continue as an MP and re-stand for election in 2015.
OT Are the Yorkshire police really so short of things to do that they can afford to send ten police officers in five cars to search the house of a seventy three year old ex pop singer accused of whispering sweet nothings to a boy thirty years ago?
And which policeman tipped the press off without even informing the owner of the house they rifled and how much did they get paid?.
We live in a sick McCarthyite society so we better get used to it
Are we sure what he's been accused of is simply 'whispering sweet nothings'?
Besides: His age is irrelevant. His occupation is irrelevant (although he'd probably take offence at being called an 'ex-' pop singer). The length of time since the alleged offence should be irrelevant IMHO, at least for the investigation.
You are utterly correct to ask how the press seemed to know. Jim Davidson said something interesting on the radio about this last week.
Having had a friend commit suicide last year, decades after he was abused at school, these historical cases do need investigating as they still have the power to effect people today. Having said that, it is vital for the police to be professional and fair to all sides.
The complications and the costs of the later just don't seem to have been thought about.
Or they have thought about it and you just arent aware of their thinking?
Have you, for example, read what the Scottish Government's white paper says about the DVLA?
Yes I have. Wishful thinking, waffle and no mention of costs or the practicalities. In an nutshell it says rUk will let us carry on on using their system until such time as we produce our better, streamlined system. That is not even the basis for negotiation let alone settlement.
Scottish independence gets less independent every time you look at it. Everything is still going to be done by the English. BTW the DVLC can easily cope with any job losses caused by independent Scotland having the nerve to look after itself by natural wastage.
Scotland underestimates its defence needs and costs - by a lot. Norway spends $4.4 billion.
You're missing the point of Pointless. It's a variety show interrupted by questions to provide amusement. I'm sure they have an audition process - not too may quizzers and load the show with giggly, cheerful people to provide material for Private Eye's "Dumb Britain".
The level of knowledge is low in general. Especially on science and politics. My all time favourites "Name an American state?" Two answers .... Mexico and Houston. And on the Celebrity version .... "Who was on the British throne in 1900?" "Er ... Margaret Thatcher?"
Yes you are correct. The cleverness of the game is not that it requires general knowledge but that it requires an understanding of how little general knowledge the public has.
Anyone who has faith in opinion polls or the suitability of the electorate to appoint a government should take note of the replies given by the '100 members of the public' - they might be disabused of their opinion.
The complications and the costs of the later just don't seem to have been thought about.
Or they have thought about it and you just arent aware of their thinking?
Have you, for example, read what the Scottish Government's white paper says about the DVLA?
Yes I have. Wishful thinking, waffle and no mention of costs or the practicalities. In an nutshell it says rUk will let us carry on on using their system until such time as we produce our better, streamlined system. That is not even the basis for negotiation let alone settlement.
Scottish independence gets less independent every time you look at it. Everything is still going to be done by the English. BTW the DVLC can easily cope with any job losses caused by independent Scotland having the nerve to look after itself by natural wastage.
Scotland underestimates its defence needs and costs - by a lot. Norway spends $4.4 billion.
And the white paper proposes a defence budget of $4.2 billion - without a coastal defence submarine squadron or maritime patrol aircraft (mainly because the MoD doesn't have any).
I can finally add something to the Scottish debate - a few years ago the question came up on PB - what does the phrase "on the brew" derive from. I met today a very old scotsman who says the phrase is "on the borough".
Comments
You're missing the point of Pointless. It's a variety show interrupted by questions to provide amusement. I'm sure they have an audition process - not too may quizzers and load the show with giggly, cheerful people to provide material for Private Eye's "Dumb Britain".
The level of knowledge is low in general. Especially on science and politics. My all time favourites "Name an American state?" Two answers .... Mexico and Houston. And on the Celebrity version .... "Who was on the British throne in 1900?" "Er ... Margaret Thatcher?"
To me the most disappointing thing was the (was it?) £500 argument. Were/are people really ready to change the fundamental nature and make-up of their country over 500 quid?
If Salmond hasn't thought through how iScotland will work it simply shows he's the arse people think.
If he doesn't get the pound - which he won't - what currency will DVLA accept for payment ?
Since the whole UK basis of vehicle tax collection changes in October why should we assume IScotland will want to willingly tag along ?
How do you enforce non-payment in a foreign jurisdiction given cross-border law isn't that clear ?
Frankly you could go on all night. The simple fact is sovereign nations have to do it for themselves.
9/14 yes vote for independence
to 5/15 UK parties put forward their approach to negotiating on behalf of rUK with Tories explaining interplay with EU renegotiations and referendum and Labour explaining how they would whip Scottish MPs to support UK independence legislation
5/15 UK government formed
5/15 to 2017 negotiation of principle terms and transitional arrangements
2017 to 5/2020 Pre-Independence Day implementation
5/2020 Independence Day and UK GE without Scottish seats
2020 onwards Post-independence implementation
2020 - 2025 Currency Union (traded for extra time to relocate Trident)
2025 Scottish currency launched (unless EU joined and Euro adopted)
Simple really...
I've already pointed out jobs will move both ways and if that means we have fewer civil servants here so be it, we appear to be creating jobs to absorb the slack.
On the other hand with the excess of jobs moving north, how are you going to pay for them all ?
And as ever you duck the practicalities.
How are we going to manage points on your licence ?
Will scottish law allow licence details to be sold to third parties ?
How will car sales and change of ownership be managed especially if over time practice either side of the border diverges ?
iScotland doesn't have one.
A bung of £500 is certainly not a good argument.
Robin Williams was battling Parkinson's disease, wife says http://dailym.ai/1t46b3O
Who knows what may be a sufficient reason for anyone of us to take that step? I could well imagine that learning you have an incurable illness could be manageable for someone and devasting for another.
came up on PB - what does the phrase "on the brew" derive from. I met today a very old scotsman who says the phrase is "on the borough".
And which policeman tipped the press off without even informing the owner of the house they rifled and how much did they get paid?.
We live in a sick McCarthyite society so we better get used to it
Like none of the other parties have have panorama chasing after them. What a sad pathetic weasling chip UKIP have on their shoulders.
Good evening.
-Mr. D.
Besides:
His age is irrelevant.
His occupation is irrelevant (although he'd probably take offence at being called an 'ex-' pop singer).
The length of time since the alleged offence should be irrelevant IMHO, at least for the investigation.
You are utterly correct to ask how the press seemed to know. Jim Davidson said something interesting on the radio about this last week.
Having had a friend commit suicide last year, decades after he was abused at school, these historical cases do need investigating as they still have the power to effect people today. Having said that, it is vital for the police to be professional and fair to all sides.
Scotland underestimates its defence needs and costs - by a lot. Norway spends $4.4 billion.
Anyone who has faith in opinion polls or the suitability of the electorate to appoint a government should take note of the replies given by the '100 members of the public' - they might be disabused of their opinion.
Sounds closely comparable to me.