I suspect if anything this poll underestimates the proportion of pensioners who will vote No. It's hard to see how the Yes campaign can turn that round because, as with currency, EU membership and NATO they just haven't bothered to think the pensions issue through. So rather than address legitimate concerns I expect the Yes campaign to carry on with it's last desperate tactic of telling lies about the NHS. All part of their positive message of course!
Here come the Tories, "stay with us and be impoverished you stupid Scots Twunts" only we can tell you how to live , you are too stupid to think for yourselves. Vote Tory.
What are you wittering on about now? And we aren't impoverished now. Have you ever been outside of Scotland and seen what impoverished truly means? You know as well as me that the Yes campaign have no answers to some very important questions. You're just too pig-headed to admit it.
Max, NO have not got any answers whatsoever. As to your other point , I have travelled extensively and lived and worked outside Scotland , so put that in your pompous pipe and smoke it. I would have thought a smarty like you would know that nowadays you can see how the world is without actually having to travel in any case. Everything may be rosy in your smug little world but if you actually travelled about Scotland you would actually know that many many people are impoverished , live terrible lives etc. You will not see that in your winebars or the conservative club though, get out and see reality.
Come on Malcolm you can't seriously be accusing another poster of being pompous. You seem to be totally lacking in self awareness. And No have plenty answers, we'll be part of the EU, part of NATO and won't have the insane currency Plan B advocated by Yes.
And what do you have against winebars? Can we expect them to be outlawed in an independent Scotland for not being sufficiently Scottish?
We will of course be in the EU and NATO as well and like all other countries will have a currency, the pound.
Of course you will Malcolm, but only because BT will prevail ;-)
I suspect if anything this poll underestimates the proportion of pensioners who will vote No. It's hard to see how the Yes campaign can turn that round because, as with currency, EU membership and NATO they just haven't bothered to think the pensions issue through. So rather than address legitimate concerns I expect the Yes campaign to carry on with it's last desperate tactic of telling lies about the NHS. All part of their positive message of course!
Here come the Tories, "stay with us and be impoverished you stupid Scots Twunts" only we can tell you how to live , you are too stupid to think for yourselves. Vote Tory.
What are you wittering on about now? And we aren't impoverished now. Have you ever been outside of Scotland and seen what impoverished truly means? You know as well as me that the Yes campaign have no answers to some very important questions. You're just too pig-headed to admit it.
Max, NO have not got any answers whatsoever. As to your other point , I have travelled extensively and lived and worked outside Scotland , so put that in your pompous pipe and smoke it. I would have thought a smarty like you would know that nowadays you can see how the world is without actually having to travel in any case. Everything may be rosy in your smug little world but if you actually travelled about Scotland you would actually know that many many people are impoverished , live terrible lives etc. You will not see that in your winebars or the conservative club though, get out and see reality.
Come on Malcolm you can't seriously be accusing another poster of being pompous. You seem to be totally lacking in self awareness. And No have plenty answers, we'll be part of the EU, part of NATO and won't have the insane currency Plan B advocated by Yes.
And what do you have against winebars? Can we expect them to be outlawed in an independent Scotland for not being sufficiently Scottish?
We will of course be in the EU and NATO as well and like all other countries will have a currency, the pound.
Of course you will Malcolm, but only because BT will prevail ;-)
In all things, the Coalition talks like a lion, and acts like a lamb. So austerity isn't really that austere, and tough immigration controls aren't really that tough.
Masterly inaction, in short.
It is a government in thrall to its civil servants. Partly out of laziness. Partly out of lack of inner beliefs.
Socrates - they're silly questions, but are they all being set in the same paper? I did the first one from this set of samples and managed to get three wrong:
You need 75% to pass. I wonder how many current British citizens would get that.
I imagine the point is to make sure people applying for citizenship (it's them who take it) have an overall familiarity with British law, history, customs and so forth, rather than actively to catch them out.
Just looking at some of the testing questions we do for the Life in the UK test.
Examples:
What TWO freedoms are offered by the UK to citizens and permanent residents?
A Long lunch breaks on Fridays B Freedom of speech C Free groceries for everyone D The right to a fair trial
Which of the following statements is correct?
A Rugby was introduced to ancient Britain by the Vikings B Rugby originated in England in the early 19th Century
I wouldn't have been sure of the rugby one (though admittedly the Vikings sound a bit far-fetched), and can't imagine why the setter thought it an important qualification for living in the UK. And would it matter where they thought the Grand Canyon was? The freedoms and fundamental principles questions are more the sort of thing we should be asking.
Has anyone tried the test on a random sample of 18 year olds born in the UK?
Socrates - they're silly questions, but are they all being set in the same paper? I did the first one from this set of samples and managed to get three wrong:
You need 75% to pass. I wonder how many current British citizens would get that.
I imagine the point is to make sure people applying for citizenship (it's them who take it) have an overall familiarity with British law, history, customs and so forth, rather than actively to catch them out.
I'm not expecting "catch questions". I'm expecting questions that would be beyond the first five on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.
You are correct there are some tricky ones, but only a few on each test. You'd have to be an idiot or fresh off the boat to not pass it with one afternoon's preparation.
Socrates - they're silly questions, but are they all being set in the same paper? I did the first one from this set of samples and managed to get three wrong:
You need 75% to pass. I wonder how many current British citizens would get that.
I imagine the point is to make sure people applying for citizenship (it's them who take it) have an overall familiarity with British law, history, customs and so forth, rather than actively to catch them out.
I'm not expecting "catch questions". I'm expecting questions that would be beyond the first five on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.
You are correct there are some tricky ones, but only a few on each test. You'd have to be an idiot or fresh off the boat to not pass it with one afternoon's preparation.
I disagree. You need 75% and you don't know what will be asked. It's an eclectic range - some silly, some strange, some genuinely hard. I would imagine a lot of born and bred Britons would struggle with quite a few. It's not a test for immigrants, but for people who want to commit to this country, take an oath to the Queen and become citizens. And it's part of that process, not the deciding factor.
Just looking at some of the testing questions we do for the Life in the UK test.
Examples:
What TWO freedoms are offered by the UK to citizens and permanent residents?
A Long lunch breaks on Fridays B Freedom of speech C Free groceries for everyone D The right to a fair trial
Which of the following statements is correct?
A Rugby was introduced to ancient Britain by the Vikings B Rugby originated in England in the early 19th Century
I wouldn't have been sure of the rugby one (though admittedly the Vikings sound a bit far-fetched), and can't imagine why the setter thought it an important qualification for living in the UK. And would it matter where they thought the Grand Canyon was? The freedoms and fundamental principles questions are more the sort of thing we should be asking.
Has anyone tried the test on a random sample of 18 year olds born in the UK?
Or 40 year olds!! How many English people know anything at all about Scotland or Wales? New citizens are expected to have some knowledge though. Good thing too, but we don't require it of people who are born here - more's the pity.
Socrates - they're silly questions, but are they all being set in the same paper? I did the first one from this set of samples and managed to get three wrong:
You need 75% to pass. I wonder how many current British citizens would get that.
I imagine the point is to make sure people applying for citizenship (it's them who take it) have an overall familiarity with British law, history, customs and so forth, rather than actively to catch them out.
I'm not expecting "catch questions". I'm expecting questions that would be beyond the first five on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.
You are correct there are some tricky ones, but only a few on each test. You'd have to be an idiot or fresh off the boat to not pass it with one afternoon's preparation.
It's numbers that matter not some test, however good or bad it is... Too much too soon and ghettoes and segregation form, then we have what we have now
Would be just the same if too many English people went to a foreign land in too little time. Nothing to do with inferiority or superiority of any race, just human nature
Has anyone tried the test on a random sample of 18 year olds born in the UK?
Your argument is that the generation of kids mostly educated under New Labour are so ignorant of British history and customs that we shouldn't be too tough on immigrants?
If Cary isn't careful he'll be the next UKIP member to stand for parliament.
I saw a BBC discussion earlier where they actually had TWO people (out of four) articulating the majority view on multiculturalism. The BBC! It seems we're turning a corner.
What is amazing is the way that Rennard's supporters (mainly elderly) have no grasp of the scale of damage that this has inflicted on its younger female activists and PPCs. There is clearly a generational problem within the LDs on understanding what is proper and improper behaviour.
Socrates - they're silly questions, but are they all being set in the same paper? I did the first one from this set of samples and managed to get three wrong:
You need 75% to pass. I wonder how many current British citizens would get that.
I imagine the point is to make sure people applying for citizenship (it's them who take it) have an overall familiarity with British law, history, customs and so forth, rather than actively to catch them out.
I'm not expecting "catch questions". I'm expecting questions that would be beyond the first five on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.
You are correct there are some tricky ones, but only a few on each test. You'd have to be an idiot or fresh off the boat to not pass it with one afternoon's preparation.
It's numbers that matter not some test, however good or bad it is... Too much too soon and ghettoes and segregation form, then we have what we have now
Would be just the same if too many English people went to a foreign land in too little time. Nothing to do with inferiority or superiority of any race, just human nature
I don't disagree, but this test is just symptomatic of politicians talking a good game on immigration with headline initiatives, but not doing anything serious in actuality. The Life in the UK test isn't difficult enough to actually make anyone spend serious time learning about the UK, the points system awarded points so easily it didn't limit immigration, the home office doesn't follow up on those that disappear and the restriction on EU benefits won't stop any Eastern Europeans from coming here.
The politicians think we're all idiots. Just the other day I got a letter from the Tories talking about how they vetoed an EU deal and secured a cut in the EU budget, when it's clear that they then let all the other countries agree a non-EU deal using EU institutions and the "cut" actually saw an increase in the British payment to Brussels. They just tell lies and disceptions as needed to stay in power so they don't have to actually change policies in accordance with the views of the public. And after showing such contempt for the public, they then wonder why the public has contempt for politicians, blaming it on the media etc.
If the bastards actually just came out and said "I disagree with the public on this, but these are my reasons" we could at least have some respect for them. That's what Edmund Burke did in his day. But they're virtually all careerist sycophants these days.
we are so cr8p, the Americans are having to step in. OK its the Express, but its actually quite a good story from what is normally an utterly dismal paper.
Part of being a colony. If we were a sovereign nation this could never arise. The US has its independence day from us; I wonder when we will have ours from them?
The rugby one is contentious since it says originated. It was certainly codified then, but much longerbroots, rugby football, back to possible celtic origins in the mists of time.
we are so cr8p, the Americans are having to step in. OK its the Express, but its actually quite a good story from what is normally an utterly dismal paper.
Part of being a colony. If we were a sovereign nation this could never arise. The US has its independence day from us; I wonder when we will have ours from them?
Anti-American nonsense. We need US help because our own government is inept on border control. That doesn't make us a "colony". The only polity compromising our independence is the European Union.
What is amazing is the way that Rennard's supporters (mainly elderly) have no grasp of the scale of damage that this has inflicted on its younger female activists and PPCs. There is clearly a generational problem within the LDs on understanding what is proper and improper behaviour.
Liberal Youth have banned him from any of their events.
What is amazing is the way that Rennard's supporters (mainly elderly) have no grasp of the scale of damage that this has inflicted on its younger female activists and PPCs. There is clearly a generational problem within the LDs on understanding what is proper and improper behaviour.
I see it as more to do with the older generation giving more weight to proper process and justice. The party procedures have not found Rennard guilty of anything despite extensive efforts to do so. Some of the younger and/or female Lib Dems want disproportionate punishment for an unproved crime based solely on emotions rather than justice. This is a point of view but out of line with Liberal values which are very strong on fairness and justice.
Had Rennard been investigated when he was an employee of the Lib Dems rather than a member then a different process would have applied. If party members (of any party) are to be expelled for encroaching on someone's personal space then there will be very few left.
Either way Rennard would have done the party he claims to love a favour by resigning. As it is the Lib Dems have had to take another hit.
Has anyone tried the test on a random sample of 18 year olds born in the UK?
Your argument is that the generation of kids mostly educated under New Labour are so ignorant of British history and customs that we shouldn't be too tough on immigrants?
Prospective citizens, not all immigrants. Just the ones who want commit, take an oath to the Queen and fulfil all other criteria. In other words, those who demonstrably wish to integrate.And the pass mark is 75%. If you believe most born and bred Britons of any age could sail through I fear you may have an over-inflated sense of their knowledge about this country.
What is amazing is the way that Rennard's supporters (mainly elderly) have no grasp of the scale of damage that this has inflicted on its younger female activists and PPCs. There is clearly a generational problem within the LDs on understanding what is proper and improper behaviour.
I see it as more to do with the older generation giving more weight to proper process and justice. The party procedures have not found Rennard guilty of anything despite exoensive efforts to do so. Some of the younger and/or female Lib Dems want disproportionate punishment for an unproved crime based solely on emotions rather than justice. This is a point of view but out of line with Liberal values.
Had Rennard been investigated when he was an employee of the Lib Dems rather than a member then a different process would have applied. If party members (of any party) are to be expelled for encroaching on someone's personal space then there will be very few left.
Either way Rennard would have done the party he claims to love a favour by resigning. As it is the Lib Dems have had to take another hit.
Didn't he allegedly put his hands on women's thighs?
I am sure you will love paying Scottish pensions when we are independent. Having contributed for a full UK state pension I will think of you wailing and gnashing your teeth as I collect my UK pension paid by rumpUK, in an independent Scotland.
FWIW, if I was the PM of an independent Scotland, I wouldn't be comfortable with rUK paying such a significant amount to so many of my voters:
(i) Scottish pensioners would naturally be interested in relations with rUK because of the (theoretical) risk their money might be cut off - this could influence their voting behaviour
(ii) Such pensions would likely be paid in sterling, both introducing currency risk to pensioners (once you have established a long-term currency solution) and reinforcing the oil-led trend to an excessively strong currency
(iii) Pensioners would be exposed to a future rUK government cutting Scottish pensions in order to save money (after all they wouldn't have votes in rUK elections.
In practice, what is likely to happen is that the estimated total liability would be calculated and then iScot would adopt responsibility for that liability with other assets being transferred by rUK to compensate so that iScot's share of *net* assets remains at 8% or whatever the agreed number is
Has anyone tried the test on a random sample of 18 year olds born in the UK?
Your argument is that the generation of kids mostly educated under New Labour are so ignorant of British history and customs that we shouldn't be too tough on immigrants?
Prospective citizens, not all immigrants. Just the ones who want commit, take an oath to the Queen and fulfil all other criteria. In other words, those who demonstrably wish to integrate.And the pass mark is 75%. If you believe most born and bred Britons of any age could sail through I fear you may have an over-inflated sense of their knowledge about this country.
Any non-EU citizen getting indefinite leave to remain needs to do it, so they certainly count as "immigrants". And getting through legal loopholes doesn't mean you "demonstrably wish to integrate". There are plenty of immigrants to this country who have become citizens but still live their entire lives in immigrant neighbourhoods, wouldn't marry someone outside their group and don't want their kids playing with others outside that group.
Your comments about born and bred Britons sailing through is pure what aboutism. The test is easy. I could pass without any study whatsoever. Anyone intelligent (and thus a valuable immigrant to us) could easily get through by a couple reads of the study guide.
we are so cr8p, the Americans are having to step in. OK its the Express, but its actually quite a good story from what is normally an utterly dismal paper.
The current political class are psychologically incapable of dealing with problems that contradict PC because for decades all the parties have been selecting candidates on the basis of their adherence to PC.
edit: The only policies they are capable of are policies that make the problem less visible - which is how the problem grew to be so big in the first place.
What is amazing is the way that Rennard's supporters (mainly elderly) have no grasp of the scale of damage that this has inflicted on its younger female activists and PPCs. There is clearly a generational problem within the LDs on understanding what is proper and improper behaviour.
I see it as more to do with the older generation giving more weight to proper process and justice. The party procedures have not found Rennard guilty of anything despite exoensive efforts to do so. Some of the younger and/or female Lib Dems want disproportionate punishment for an unproved crime based solely on emotions rather than justice. This is a point of view but out of line with Liberal values.
Had Rennard been investigated when he was an employee of the Lib Dems rather than a member then a different process would have applied. If party members (of any party) are to be expelled for encroaching on someone's personal space then there will be very few left.
Either way Rennard would have done the party he claims to love a favour by resigning. As it is the Lib Dems have had to take another hit.
Didn't he allegedly put his hands on women's thighs?
Allegedly rather more than that. Given the comments of some lords it's clear there's a generational divide on improper behaviour.
Hopefully you are not involved in any financial decisions at work.
Nope: I just integrate the systems. Actuaries do (or not do) the finance.Trust me: Give up on patronising conflations and try to answer a/any question posed.
I support the idea of Scots' independence and you respond with witless paraphrases of hopelessness-over-hope. Why cannot Scotland come up with a reason for independence other then 'Erggh! Engurlisch!"...?
Nobody gives a hoot about the English
They've noticed. Trust me, they've noticed. Aren't you clever boys.......
What is amazing is the way that Rennard's supporters (mainly elderly) have no grasp of the scale of damage that this has inflicted on its younger female activists and PPCs. There is clearly a generational problem within the LDs on understanding what is proper and improper behaviour.
I see it as more to do with the older generation giving more weight to proper process and justice. The party procedures have not found Rennard guilty of anything despite extensive efforts to do so. Some of the younger and/or female Lib Dems want disproportionate punishment for an unproved crime based solely on emotions rather than justice. This is a point of view but out of line with Liberal values which are very strong on fairness and justice.
Had Rennard been investigated when he was an employee of the Lib Dems rather than a member then a different process would have applied. If party members (of any party) are to be expelled for encroaching on someone's personal space then there will be very few left.
Either way Rennard would have done the party he claims to love a favour by resigning. As it is the Lib Dems have had to take another hit.
Isn't the problem that LD party procedures require a criminal standard of proof "beyond all reasonable doubt" where it is much more normal to apply the civil standard of proof - "on the balance of probabilities" - and this in fact is all the law requires (you can legally be fired from your job with this level of proof).
So the party finds itself unable to act where it should be possible to do so.
Has anyone tried the test on a random sample of 18 year olds born in the UK?
Your argument is that the generation of kids mostly educated under New Labour are so ignorant of British history and customs that we shouldn't be too tough on immigrants?
Prospective citizens, not all immigrants. Just the ones who want commit, take an oath to the Queen and fulfil all other criteria. In other words, those who demonstrably wish to integrate.And the pass mark is 75%. If you believe most born and bred Britons of any age could sail through I fear you may have an over-inflated sense of their knowledge about this country.
Any non-EU citizen getting indefinite leave to remain needs to do it, so they certainly count as "immigrants". And getting through legal loopholes doesn't mean you "demonstrably wish to integrate". There are plenty of immigrants to this country who have become citizens but still live their entire lives in immigrant neighbourhoods, wouldn't marry someone outside their group and don't want their kids playing with others outside that group.
Your comments about born and bred Britons sailing through is pure what aboutism. The test is easy. I could pass without any study whatsoever. Anyone intelligent (and thus a valuable immigrant to us) could easily get through by a couple reads of the study guide.
I am afraid we will have to disagree. The test is not a measure of intelligence. It is a measure of English comprehension and of knowledge about the UK. There is a double threshold there that no-one born and bred here has to fulfil. And, of course, anyone who wishes to become a UK citizen - as opposed to just wishing to live here - takes it as part of their application process. Until recently it did not at all. We will have to disagree about whether it is easy. I have a degree and in the two tests I did failed to get all the answers correct.
Has anyone tried the test on a random sample of 18 year olds born in the UK?
Your argument is that the generation of kids mostly educated under New Labour are so ignorant of British history and customs that we shouldn't be too tough on immigrants?
Prospective citizens, not all immigrants. Just the ones who want commit, take an oath to the Queen and fulfil all other criteria. In other words, those who demonstrably wish to integrate.And the pass mark is 75%. If you believe most born and bred Britons of any age could sail through I fear you may have an over-inflated sense of their knowledge about this country.
Isn't it all a nonsense red herring anyway? The jihadists who are returning are probably British born and bred and would be as good or bad at passing the test as anyone else
Their parents or grandparents, the first wave of immigrants, are probably relatively well integrated and far less radical, despite maybe not being born British
"Which of the following is a fundamental principle of British life?
A Inequality B Extremism C Intolerance D Individual liberty"
Surely Inequality has to be a correct answer, when members of one faith community are not allowed to become head of state, and the leading clerics of another are given guaranteed seats in parliament?
Right, I'm off to pour water over next door's cat's head...
we are so cr8p, the Americans are having to step in. OK its the Express, but its actually quite a good story from what is normally an utterly dismal paper.
Part of being a colony. If we were a sovereign nation this could never arise. The US has its independence day from us; I wonder when we will have ours from them?
Anti-American nonsense. We need US help because our own government is inept on border control. That doesn't make us a "colony". The only polity compromising our independence is the European Union.
That would be the same European Union which Obama has (unnacceptably) advised Britain to remain in. We are their person inside the EU, and we are as beholden to them in foreign policy as we are to the EU in domestic. I'm afraid you live in cloud cuckoo land if you think America sees us as anything more than another theatre to intervene in.
Has anyone tried the test on a random sample of 18 year olds born in the UK?
Your argument is that the generation of kids mostly educated under New Labour are so ignorant of British history and customs that we shouldn't be too tough on immigrants?
Prospective citizens, not all immigrants. Just the ones who want commit, take an oath to the Queen and fulfil all other criteria. In other words, those who demonstrably wish to integrate.And the pass mark is 75%. If you believe most born and bred Britons of any age could sail through I fear you may have an over-inflated sense of their knowledge about this country.
Isn't it all a nonsense red herring anyway? The jihadists who are returning are probably British born and bred and would be as good or bad at passing the test as anyone else
Their parents or grandparents, the first wave of immigrants, are probably relatively well integrated and far less radical, despite maybe not being born British
''The current political class are psychologically incapable of dealing with problems that contradict PC because for decades all the parties have been selecting candidates on the basis of their adherence to PC.''
The May/Davis clash is symbolic of this, I think. International law must come ahead the safety of the British people.
If a few hundred of us are blown to bits by returning jihadists, that is an acceptable price to pay to keep our international obligations intact.
Has anyone tried the test on a random sample of 18 year olds born in the UK?
Your argument is that the generation of kids mostly educated under New Labour are so ignorant of British history and customs that we shouldn't be too tough on immigrants?
No, my argument is that things like when rugby was invented don't matter. We've had this discussion before a few years ago - some people attach great importance to knowing various detailed facts like this about British history, not everyone agrees. I can see a case for familiarity with the broad outline of British history - we used to have an Empire, America used to be a British colony, we had two big wars with Germany, etc. But specific dates and pub quiz questions? No.
The difficulty about the test is that there isn't really a consensus on what is important for a permanent resident of Britain beyond some very basic questions. I think you and I might agree on some of the questions - people should understand the importance attached to freedom of speech, for instance. On others each of us might choose questions that the other thought were irrelevant - I'd have lots of practical ones like "If you feel slightly ill, should you go to a GP or the hospital?" and "Can landlords put up your rent without notice?" I don't know if any of my (English) friends and neighbours know the origin of rugby and the subject is extremely unlikely to come up.
What is amazing is the way that Rennard's supporters (mainly elderly) have no grasp of the scale of damage that this has inflicted on its younger female activists and PPCs. There is clearly a generational problem within the LDs on understanding what is proper and improper behaviour.
I see it as more to do with the older generation giving more weight to proper process and justice. The party procedures have not found Rennard guilty of anything despite extensive efforts to do so. Some of the younger and/or female Lib Dems want disproportionate punishment for an unproved crime based solely on emotions rather than justice. This is a point of view but out of line with Liberal values which are very strong on fairness and justice. Had Rennard been investigated when he was an employee of the Lib Dems rather than a member then a different process would have applied. If party members (of any party) are to be expelled for encroaching on someone's personal space then there will be very few left. Either way Rennard would have done the party he claims to love a favour by resigning. As it is the Lib Dems have had to take another hit.
The allegations happened WHEN he was an employee. Yet Clegg/Alexander/exPresident/etc chose to take no formal disciplinary action over the allegations. 1 male against one female. Repeated four times. What is missing from this is any sense about the "brand image of the LDs". Rennard's supporters seem to think that any damage to the party's image is worth this. They rate 1 older man more highly than 4+ female activists.
Oddly, not one female LD (yes there are 7) has anything to say about the whole sorry episode. Nothing to say from the older female LD MPs about their younger sisters. They simply choose to ignore it and look the other way. I just cannot conceive of all the senior female MPs in Labour or the Conservatives doing the same. Why are female LD MPs acting so differently?
Imagine the senescent screeching on here if one of the few remaining Yes supporters put forward a poll of a selected subset of respondents historically in favour of Yes?
Something of similar psephological value would be the Scottish subset of 170 in yesterday's Comres poll (thanks for these figs from Scottish Skier, a valuable contributor on Scot Goes Pop, a site that's actually relevant to the indy debate).
Modestly sized (170) subset from Comres
How favourable or unfavourable are you towards each of the following?
Independence for Scotland
45% Favourable 36% Unfavourable 9% Neither 11% DK
That's from a group identifying as 55% voters for Unionist parties, 37% for SNP. A straw in the wind.
You're a bit slow....I pointed that out on the last thread....
Mr. Evershed, it was a racing incident. Hamilton cut across Rosberg, defending the racing line (entirely fair) and contact was made. It could easily have not damaged Rosberg's front wing or not punctured Hamilton's tyre. Hamilton did the same manoeuvre repeatedly at Bahrain. Today, contact was made, and he was unfortunate.
The stunning statistic in that quote from the learned Sunday Post is half of our Council Tax now goes in paying pensions. This is bordering on extortion.
Earlier this year one of the high head yins at Dundee City Council decided to retire. Because this was contrived to occur in yet another reorganisation she walked away with over £300K of Council Tax money and, of course, an extremely generous unfunded pension.
I have a neighbour who retired on such a pension at 59. My Council Tax, when I am still working at 70 (health permitting) will be funding that.
I have certainly had to bite my tongue to avoid angry retorts at certain colleagues of mine in local government who so bitterly complained about retirement age being put back a year or two, and the unfairness of it, when those of my generation who lack the ability or luck to earn a very comfortable amount are continually told how we will have to work well into our 70s or until death, whichever occurs first.
If/when the banks go under again they'll be taking all the pensions with them so you'll have the last laugh.
Mr. Evershed, it was a racing incident. Hamilton cut across Rosberg, defending the racing line (entirely fair) and contact was made. It could easily have not damaged Rosberg's front wing or not punctured Hamilton's tyre. Hamilton did the same manoeuvre repeatedly at Bahrain. Today, contact was made, and he was unfortunate.
Has anyone tried the test on a random sample of 18 year olds born in the UK?
Your argument is that the generation of kids mostly educated under New Labour are so ignorant of British history and customs that we shouldn't be too tough on immigrants?
Prospective citizens, not all immigrants. Just the ones who want commit, take an oath to the Queen and fulfil all other criteria. In other words, those who demonstrably wish to integrate.And the pass mark is 75%. If you believe most born and bred Britons of any age could sail through I fear you may have an over-inflated sense of their knowledge about this country.
Isn't it all a nonsense red herring anyway? The jihadists who are returning are probably British born and bred and would be as good or bad at passing the test as anyone else
Their parents or grandparents, the first wave of immigrants, are probably relatively well integrated and far less radical, despite maybe not being born British
I completely agree.
Nice!
I think I'll leave it at that and enjoy my dinner at ma and pas
Mr. Evershed, it was a racing incident. Hamilton cut across Rosberg, defending the racing line (entirely fair) and contact was made. It could easily have not damaged Rosberg's front wing or not punctured Hamilton's tyre. Hamilton did the same manoeuvre repeatedly at Bahrain. Today, contact was made, and he was unfortunate.
Mr. Gadfly, Hamilton wasn't enjoying a jam sandwich when Rosberg rammed him, the pair came together. You could just as easily argue Hamilton hit Rosberg.
What is amazing is the way that Rennard's supporters (mainly elderly) have no grasp of the scale of damage that this has inflicted on its younger female activists and PPCs. There is clearly a generational problem within the LDs on understanding what is proper and improper behaviour.
I see it as more to do with the older generation giving more weight to proper process and justice. The party procedures have not found Rennard guilty of anything despite extensive efforts to do so. Some of the younger and/or female Lib Dems want disproportionate punishment for an unproved crime based solely on emotions rather than justice. This is a point of view but out of line with Liberal values which are very strong on fairness and justice. Had Rennard been investigated when he was an employee of the Lib Dems rather than a member then a different process would have applied. If party members (of any party) are to be expelled for encroaching on someone's personal space then there will be very few left. Either way Rennard would have done the party he claims to love a favour by resigning. As it is the Lib Dems have had to take another hit.
The allegations happened WHEN he was an employee. Yet Clegg/Alexander/exPresident/etc chose to take no formal disciplinary action over the allegations. 1 male against one female. Repeated four times. What is missing from this is any sense about the "brand image of the LDs". Rennard's supporters seem to think that any damage to the party's image is worth this. They rate 1 older man more highly than 4+ female activists.
Oddly, not one female LD (yes there are 7) has anything to say about the whole sorry episode. Nothing to say from the older female LD MPs about their younger sisters. They simply choose to ignore it and look the other way. I just cannot conceive of all the senior female MPs in Labour or the Conservatives doing the same. Why are female LD MPs acting so differently?
I don't think that's true.
For example I'm pretty sure I've seen Lynne Featherstone for example comment on it.
I am sure you will love paying Scottish pensions when we are independent. Having contributed for a full UK state pension I will think of you wailing and gnashing your teeth as I collect my UK pension paid by rumpUK, in an independent Scotland.
FWIW, if I was the PM of an independent Scotland, I wouldn't be comfortable with rUK paying such a significant amount to so many of my voters:
(i) Scottish pensioners would naturally be interested in relations with rUK because of the (theoretical) risk their money might be cut off - this could influence their voting behaviour
(ii) Such pensions would likely be paid in sterling, both introducing currency risk to pensioners (once you have established a long-term currency solution) and reinforcing the oil-led trend to an excessively strong currency
(iii) Pensioners would be exposed to a future rUK government cutting Scottish pensions in order to save money (after all they wouldn't have votes in rUK elections.
In practice, what is likely to happen is that the estimated total liability would be calculated and then iScot would adopt responsibility for that liability with other assets being transferred by rUK to compensate so that iScot's share of *net* assets remains at 8% or whatever the agreed number is
Charles , I agree with you, my previous response was just in kind to Carlotta who is unable to discuss matters in an adult fashion.
Hopefully you are not involved in any financial decisions at work.
Nope: I just integrate the systems. Actuaries do (or not do) the finance.Trust me: Give up on patronising conflations and try to answer a/any question posed.
I support the idea of Scots' independence and you respond with witless paraphrases of hopelessness-over-hope. Why cannot Scotland come up with a reason for independence other then 'Erggh! Engurlisch!"...?
Nobody gives a hoot about the English
They've noticed. Trust me, they've noticed. Aren't you clever boys.......
What is amazing is the way that Rennard's supporters (mainly elderly) have no grasp of the scale of damage that this has inflicted on its younger female activists and PPCs. There is clearly a generational problem within the LDs on understanding what is proper and improper behaviour.
Liberal Youth have banned him from any of their events.
I am sure you will love paying Scottish pensions when we are independent. Having contributed for a full UK state pension I will think of you wailing and gnashing your teeth as I collect my UK pension paid by rumpUK, in an independent Scotland.
FWIW, if I was the PM of an independent Scotland, I wouldn't be comfortable with rUK paying such a significant amount to so many of my voters:
(i) Scottish pensioners would naturally be interested in relations with rUK because of the (theoretical) risk their money might be cut off - this could influence their voting behaviour
(ii) Such pensions would likely be paid in sterling, both introducing currency risk to pensioners (once you have established a long-term currency solution) and reinforcing the oil-led trend to an excessively strong currency
(iii) Pensioners would be exposed to a future rUK government cutting Scottish pensions in order to save money (after all they wouldn't have votes in rUK elections.
In practice, what is likely to happen is that the estimated total liability would be calculated and then iScot would adopt responsibility for that liability with other assets being transferred by rUK to compensate so that iScot's share of *net* assets remains at 8% or whatever the agreed number is
Mr. Gadfly, Hamilton wasn't enjoying a jam sandwich when Rosberg rammed him, the pair came together. You could just as easily argue Hamilton hit Rosberg.
With respect, I disagree. F1 driving at its best is about respect: you drive as close to the edge as possible, but trust the opposing driver will not do something stupid. This is exactly why we get so much wheel-to-wheel action without contact. This is even more the case when the drivers are team mates: for example Hamilton's and Button's three or four cases of wheel-to-wheel driving when they were at McLaren, only one of which ended in a collision.
Hamilton had the racing line and was in the lead. Rosberg came from behind, but importantly, Hamilton did nothing unusual. If he had taken a line to give Rosberg more room, it would have been tantamount to letting him through at a time it was unclear who was the faster driver. I'd like to see an overhead, but it seems there was still room on Rosberg's left. When it was clear he could not make the move stick, he chose not to change line.
It is a racing incident, but Rosberg is to blame (i.e. there is no need for a race penalty).
More interesting was what happened afterwards. I'd like to think I wouldn't boo, but I can understand why the crowd did. This year is about the Rosberg<>Hamilton rivalry, and the month up to this race was dominated by which of the two would win. The crowd were expecting some good racing action between them, and this was removed by Rosberg's silliness.
However, Rosberg will be carpeted for his comments after the race. Blaming British fans repeatedly is not what the Mercedes salesmen will want to hear. That, more than anything else, will cause him problems with the management.
And on other notes, congratulations to Ricci and Red Bull.
Thinking post-referendum,Darling could be drafted in to Ed Miliband's election team,although it's possible he may want to help govern his fellow Scots in some capacity.I've never really got over Mrs Volcano asking why he dyed his eyebrows black.
NO campaign getting ever more desperate , looks like their real opinions are coming out , what is with the "new Scots", pretty BNP is it not. there are a lot of nasties associated with NO.
Thinking post-referendum,Darling could be drafted in to Ed Miliband's election team,although it's possible he may want to help govern his fellow Scots in some capacity.I've never really got over Mrs Volcano asking why he dyed his eyebrows black.
How desperate must they be if they are drafting in failures like Darling. Does not bode well for labour if that is their future. Scraping the barrel does not cover it. If the Tories cannot beat those no hopers it is criminal.
Mr. Gadfly, Hamilton wasn't enjoying a jam sandwich when Rosberg rammed him, the pair came together. You could just as easily argue Hamilton hit Rosberg.
Hamilton had the racing line. Lauda has apportioned all the blame on Rosberg as has Toto Wolff. Rosberg had to back off there because Hamilton had the racing line, trying to barge through a closed door is dangerous. If the situation were reversed the FIA would be looking at the incident and would now look to penalise Hamilton.
Thinking post-referendum,Darling could be drafted in to Ed Miliband's election team,although it's possible he may want to help govern his fellow Scots in some capacity.I've never really got over Mrs Volcano asking why he dyed his eyebrows black.
How desperate must they be if they are drafting in failures like Darling. Does not bode well for labour if that is their future. Scraping the barrel does not cover it. If the Tories cannot beat those no hopers it is criminal.
Is this the same Darling who is significantly better trusted by pensioners than Salmond (iirc 36:1 among No voters, the majority?)
I am sure you will love paying Scottish pensions when we are independent. Having contributed for a full UK state pension I will think of you wailing and gnashing your teeth as I collect my UK pension paid by rumpUK, in an independent Scotland.
FWIW, if I was the PM of an independent Scotland, I wouldn't be comfortable with rUK paying such a significant amount to so many of my voters:
(i) Scottish pensioners would naturally be interested in relations with rUK because of the (theoretical) risk their money might be cut off - this could influence their voting behaviour
(ii) Such pensions would likely be paid in sterling, both introducing currency risk to pensioners (once you have established a long-term currency solution) and reinforcing the oil-led trend to an excessively strong currency
(iii) Pensioners would be exposed to a future rUK government cutting Scottish pensions in order to save money (after all they wouldn't have votes in rUK elections.
In practice, what is likely to happen is that the estimated total liability would be calculated and then iScot would adopt responsibility for that liability with other assets being transferred by rUK to compensate so that iScot's share of *net* assets remains at 8% or whatever the agreed number is
Charles , I agree with you, my previous response was just in kind to Carlotta who is unable to discuss matters in an adult fashion.
You mean like this:
Dear Dear , Toom Tabard is alive and well.
And thanks for reminding us that Darling is trusted 39:1 over Salmond among No voting pensioners.
I am quite sure that some countries do have higher state pensions but that is not the claim is it.
In making such a comparison then for it to be meaningful one would have to take into account the full range of benefits available to a pensioner in identical circumstances in each state and adjust for purchasing power parity. I really don't think the Mail article can be used to justify anything serious - as I point out the figures don't even work in their own terms.
Fair enough! I withdraw the claim and substitute "I have a vague impression based on miscellaneous dubious newspaper articles and anecdotal experience that UK state pensions are lower than most European countries".
We wargamers call that "a retreat to a tactically defensible position".
You're also right about it having been common in company pensions to have final salary provision. Companies had various kinds of small print though. When I left my Swiss employer of 18 years I discovered that they could then chuck away all their employers' contributions and merely return my contributions plus I think 3%. To benefit from the superb pension I'd have needed to stay there till I retired. I discovered that after I was already standing for election and I did think oo-er, but at age 47 you don't worry too much about such things.
Fluffy: since you ask, my Parliamentary pension would be £21,000/year and payable from whenever I cease to be a candidate or MP. If I'm elected, I forfeit it until no longer elected (the scheme has no compensation for claiming late). So in addition to having more time to play Elite, I have a financial interest in losing next year :-).
So a pension income that would probably require £700,000 in assets in the private sector.
And you were an MP, I think for 13 years? So effectively you got more than £50,000 per year in pension contributions - somewhere around 75% of an MP's salary
Do you think that it is just that MPs should have so much better pension provision than the poor saps who vote for them?
I am sure you will love paying Scottish pensions when we are independent. Having contributed for a full UK state pension I will think of you wailing and gnashing your teeth as I collect my UK pension paid by rumpUK, in an independent Scotland.
at 8% or whatever the agreed number is
Charles , I agree with you, my previous response was just in kind to Carlotta who is unable to discuss matters in an adult fashion.
You mean like this:
Dear Dear , Toom Tabard is alive and well.
And thanks for reminding us that Darling is trusted 39:1 over Salmond among No voting pensioners.
Some friends of yours no doubt, they have similar opinions as you as well
Lewis Hamilton claims Mercedes team-mate Nico Rosberg admitted in a post-race meeting that he deliberately hit him during Sunday's Belgian Grand Prix. Hamilton's race was effectively ended when he suffered a puncture on lap two at Spa after Rosberg collided with him. The German went on to finish second, extending his lead in the championship to 29 points with seven races left. "We just had a meeting about it and he basically said he did it on purpose," said Hamilton. The 2008 world champion added: "He said he could have avoided it, but he didn't want to. He basically said, 'I did it to prove a point'."
If true, then Rosberg surely deserves to be penalised by his team
I am sure you will love paying Scottish pensions when we are independent. Having contributed for a full UK state pension I will think of you wailing and gnashing your teeth as I collect my UK pension paid by rumpUK, in an independent Scotland.
at 8% or whatever the agreed number is
Charles , I agree with you, my previous response was just in kind to Carlotta who is unable to discuss matters in an adult fashion.
You mean like this:
Dear Dear , Toom Tabard is alive and well.
And thanks for reminding us that Darling is trusted 39:1 over Salmond among No voting pensioners.
Some friends of yours no doubt, they have similar opinions as you as well
Socrates - they're silly questions, but are they all being set in the same paper? I did the first one from this set of samples and managed to get three wrong:
You need 75% to pass. I wonder how many current British citizens would get that.
I imagine the point is to make sure people applying for citizenship (it's them who take it) have an overall familiarity with British law, history, customs and so forth, rather than actively to catch them out.
I'm not expecting "catch questions". I'm expecting questions that would be beyond the first five on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.
You are correct there are some tricky ones, but only a few on each test. You'd have to be an idiot or fresh off the boat to not pass it with one afternoon's preparation.
I disagree. You need 75% and you don't know what will be asked. It's an eclectic range - some silly, some strange, some genuinely hard. I would imagine a lot of born and bred Britons would struggle with quite a few. It's not a test for immigrants, but for people who want to commit to this country, take an oath to the Queen and become citizens. And it's part of that process, not the deciding factor.
When my wife did it it was questions like "what is the proportion of X in the country" - 8%, 9%, 10% or 11%.
I'm not sure that helps either.
I'd tend to look at an interview as the basis for making the decision
I am sure you will love paying Scottish pensions when we are independent. Having contributed for a full UK state pension I will think of you wailing and gnashing your teeth as I collect my UK pension paid by rumpUK, in an independent Scotland.
at 8% or whatever the agreed number is
Charles , I agree with you, my previous response was just in kind to Carlotta who is unable to discuss matters in an adult fashion.
You mean like this:
Dear Dear , Toom Tabard is alive and well.
And thanks for reminding us that Darling is trusted 39:1 over Salmond among No voting pensioners.
Some friends of yours no doubt, they have similar opinions as you as well
Discuss Salmond's trust rating among pensioners then.....
Why do you not discuss the rag tag band that are part of NO campaign, given you support most of their points. I personally do not believe that there is a problem with pensioners , you are obsessed with unionist propaganda. Let us see you comment on your pals statements.
I am sure you will love paying Scottish pensions when we are independent. Having contributed for a full UK state pension I will think of you wailing and gnashing your teeth as I collect my UK pension paid by rumpUK, in an independent Scotland.
at 8% or whatever the agreed number is
Charles , I agree with you, my previous response was just in kind to Carlotta who is unable to discuss matters in an adult fashion.
You mean like this:
Dear Dear , Toom Tabard is alive and well.
And thanks for reminding us that Darling is trusted 39:1 over Salmond among No voting pensioners.
Some friends of yours no doubt, they have similar opinions as you as well
If you read the small print (always wise where the SNP are concerned) you'll note that it's not Better Together material - but from Charlie Ballie's Britannica Party - you ever heard of them? Me neither!
NO campaign getting ever more desperate , looks like their real opinions are coming out , what is with the "new Scots", pretty BNP is it not. there are a lot of nasties associated with NO.
I am sure you will love paying Scottish pensions when we are independent. Having contributed for a full UK state pension I will think of you wailing and gnashing your teeth as I collect my UK pension paid by rumpUK, in an independent Scotland.
at 8% or whatever the agreed number is
Charles , I agree with you, my previous response was just in kind to Carlotta who is unable to discuss matters in an adult fashion.
You mean like this:
Dear Dear , Toom Tabard is alive and well.
And thanks for reminding us that Darling is trusted 39:1 over Salmond among No voting pensioners.
Some friends of yours no doubt, they have similar opinions as you as well
If you read the small print (always wise where the SNP are concerned) you'll note that it's not Better Together material - but from Charlie Ballie's Britannica Party - you ever heard of them? Me neither!
I am sure you will love paying Scottish pensions when we are independent. Having contributed for a full UK state pension I will think of you wailing and gnashing your teeth as I collect my UK pension paid by rumpUK, in an independent Scotland.
at 8% or whatever the agreed number is
Charles , I agree with you, my previous response was just in kind to Carlotta who is unable to discuss matters in an adult fashion.
You mean like this:
Dear Dear , Toom Tabard is alive and well.
And thanks for reminding us that Darling is trusted 39:1 over Salmond among No voting pensioners.
Some friends of yours no doubt, they have similar opinions as you as well
Discuss Salmond's trust rating among pensioners then.....
Why do you not discuss the rag tag band that are part of NO campaign, given you support most of their points. I personally do not believe that there is a problem with pensioners , you are obsessed with unionist propaganda. Let us see you comment on your pals statements. As ever, everything is wonderful in YESNP land and the fact that 96% of pensioners intending to vote no are concerned about their pensions in SINDY is of no consequence and their views may be dismissed.
As for Charlie Ballie's Britannica Party - I suspect you have a narrow minded obsessive kindred spirit on the other side of the fence!
NO campaign getting ever more desperate , looks like their real opinions are coming out , what is with the "new Scots", pretty BNP is it not. there are a lot of nasties associated with NO.
Comments
There's no point trying to whip up fury on here Mike, its completely pointless. Nothing will get done.
If you feel Britain is being too soft on islamists., lobby politicians or press your mates at UKIP to adopt tougher policies. Don;t get mad, get even.
youch...
Examples:
What TWO freedoms are offered by the UK to citizens and permanent residents?
A Long lunch breaks on Fridays
B Freedom of speech
C Free groceries for everyone
D The right to a fair trial
Which of the following statements is correct?
A Rugby was introduced to ancient Britain by the Vikings
B Rugby originated in England in the early 19th Century
Which of the following statements is correct?
A In 1588 the English defeated a Spanish invasion fleet of ships
B In 1588 the English defeated a German invasaion fleet of bomber planes
Our immigration process is full of holes.
A Dollar
B Euro
C Yen
D Pound Sterling
Which of the following is a fundamental principle of British life?
A Inequality
B Extremism
C Intolerance
D Individual liberty
Which TWO are famous British landmarks?
A Snowdonia
B Grand Canyon
C Loch Lomond
D Notre Dame
Which TWO are major political parties in the UK?
A Labour Party
B Office Party
C Modern Party
D Conservative Party
In all things, the Coalition talks like a lion, and acts like a lamb. So austerity isn't really that austere, and tough immigration controls aren't really that tough.
Masterly inaction, in short.
It is a government in thrall to its civil servants. Partly out of laziness. Partly out of lack of inner beliefs.
http://www.freelifeintheuktest.com/practice-test/summary
You need 75% to pass. I wonder how many current British citizens would get that.
I imagine the point is to make sure people applying for citizenship (it's them who take it) have an overall familiarity with British law, history, customs and so forth, rather than actively to catch them out.
Has anyone tried the test on a random sample of 18 year olds born in the UK?
You are correct there are some tricky ones, but only a few on each test. You'd have to be an idiot or fresh off the boat to not pass it with one afternoon's preparation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11053646/Multiculturalism-has-brought-us-honour-killings-and-Sharia-law-says-Archbishop.html
If Cary isn't careful he'll be the next UKIP member to stand for parliament.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28918393
i think the headline may be over-egging the pudding a little
Would be just the same if too many English people went to a foreign land in too little time. Nothing to do with inferiority or superiority of any race, just human nature
Nailed it 46 years ago
http://youtu.be/eKPze0dRgW8
Just writing up the post-race analysis of a quite eventful Belgian Grand Prix.
Some specific details of what she alleges he did.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/alison-goldworthy-quits-party-saying-its-no-place-for-women-who-want-to-deliver-change-42147.html
What is amazing is the way that Rennard's supporters (mainly elderly) have no grasp of the scale of damage that this has inflicted on its younger female activists and PPCs. There is clearly a generational problem within the LDs on understanding what is proper and improper behaviour.
The politicians think we're all idiots. Just the other day I got a letter from the Tories talking about how they vetoed an EU deal and secured a cut in the EU budget, when it's clear that they then let all the other countries agree a non-EU deal using EU institutions and the "cut" actually saw an increase in the British payment to Brussels. They just tell lies and disceptions as needed to stay in power so they don't have to actually change policies in accordance with the views of the public. And after showing such contempt for the public, they then wonder why the public has contempt for politicians, blaming it on the media etc.
If the bastards actually just came out and said "I disagree with the public on this, but these are my reasons" we could at least have some respect for them. That's what Edmund Burke did in his day. But they're virtually all careerist sycophants these days.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/11052965/Tony-Blair-gives-Kazakhstans-autocratic-president-tips-on-how-to-defend-a-massacre.html
And if you have to go via Tegel, avoid the Red Baron. It's truly nasty in a way that very few airport restaurants manage to achieve...
I see it as more to do with the older generation giving more weight to proper process and justice. The party procedures have not found Rennard guilty of anything despite extensive efforts to do so. Some of the younger and/or female Lib Dems want disproportionate punishment for an unproved crime based solely on emotions rather than justice. This is a point of view but out of line with Liberal values which are very strong on fairness and justice.
Had Rennard been investigated when he was an employee of the Lib Dems rather than a member then a different process would have applied. If party members (of any party) are to be expelled for encroaching on someone's personal space then there will be very few left.
Either way Rennard would have done the party he claims to love a favour by resigning. As it is the Lib Dems have had to take another hit.
(i) Scottish pensioners would naturally be interested in relations with rUK because of the (theoretical) risk their money might be cut off - this could influence their voting behaviour
(ii) Such pensions would likely be paid in sterling, both introducing currency risk to pensioners (once you have established a long-term currency solution) and reinforcing the oil-led trend to an excessively strong currency
(iii) Pensioners would be exposed to a future rUK government cutting Scottish pensions in order to save money (after all they wouldn't have votes in rUK elections.
In practice, what is likely to happen is that the estimated total liability would be calculated and then iScot would adopt responsibility for that liability with other assets being transferred by rUK to compensate so that iScot's share of *net* assets remains at 8% or whatever the agreed number is
Your comments about born and bred Britons sailing through is pure what aboutism. The test is easy. I could pass without any study whatsoever. Anyone intelligent (and thus a valuable immigrant to us) could easily get through by a couple reads of the study guide.
edit: The only policies they are capable of are policies that make the problem less visible - which is how the problem grew to be so big in the first place.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/belgium-post-race-analysis.html
So the party finds itself unable to act where it should be possible to do so.
Their parents or grandparents, the first wave of immigrants, are probably relatively well integrated and far less radical, despite maybe not being born British
A Inequality
B Extremism
C Intolerance
D Individual liberty"
Surely Inequality has to be a correct answer, when members of one faith community are not allowed to become head of state, and the leading clerics of another are given guaranteed seats in parliament?
Right, I'm off to pour water over next door's cat's head...
The May/Davis clash is symbolic of this, I think. International law must come ahead the safety of the British people.
If a few hundred of us are blown to bits by returning jihadists, that is an acceptable price to pay to keep our international obligations intact.
The difficulty about the test is that there isn't really a consensus on what is important for a permanent resident of Britain beyond some very basic questions. I think you and I might agree on some of the questions - people should understand the importance attached to freedom of speech, for instance. On others each of us might choose questions that the other thought were irrelevant - I'd have lots of practical ones like "If you feel slightly ill, should you go to a GP or the hospital?" and "Can landlords put up your rent without notice?" I don't know if any of my (English) friends and neighbours know the origin of rugby and the subject is extremely unlikely to come up.
But we might agree that the test needs a rethink!
Rosberg comes second whilst Hamilton is forced to retire.
This means Rosberg increases his lead in the championship over Hamilton by18 points.
Should Mercedes ban Rosberg for one race as a punishment?
Oddly, not one female LD (yes there are 7) has anything to say about the whole sorry episode. Nothing to say from the older female LD MPs about their younger sisters. They simply choose to ignore it and look the other way. I just cannot conceive of all the senior female MPs in Labour or the Conservatives doing the same. Why are female LD MPs acting so differently?
If/when the banks go under again they'll be taking all the pensions with them so you'll have the last laugh.
That's not what the Head of Mercedes Motorsport, Toto Wolff said. He believes what Rosberg did is unacceptable - see http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/28913247
Neither driver was to blame.
I think I'll leave it at that and enjoy my dinner at ma and pas
"Some might argue it was a racing incident, but the German broke the golden rule of Formula One: do not hit your team-mate. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/11053773/Belgian-Grand-Prix-2014-Clash-between-Lewis-Hamilton-and-Nico-Rosberg-eclipses-victory-for-Daniel-Ricciardo.html
For example I'm pretty sure I've seen Lynne Featherstone for example comment on it.
Any fule knoes the answer to the rugby question. Please go immediately to the naughty step and stay there for four hours.
PS First match involving open rugby clubs took place in 1857 between Manchester and Liverpool
Hamilton had the racing line and was in the lead. Rosberg came from behind, but importantly, Hamilton did nothing unusual. If he had taken a line to give Rosberg more room, it would have been tantamount to letting him through at a time it was unclear who was the faster driver. I'd like to see an overhead, but it seems there was still room on Rosberg's left. When it was clear he could not make the move stick, he chose not to change line.
It is a racing incident, but Rosberg is to blame (i.e. there is no need for a race penalty).
More interesting was what happened afterwards. I'd like to think I wouldn't boo, but I can understand why the crowd did. This year is about the Rosberg<>Hamilton rivalry, and the month up to this race was dominated by which of the two would win. The crowd were expecting some good racing action between them, and this was removed by Rosberg's silliness.
However, Rosberg will be carpeted for his comments after the race. Blaming British fans repeatedly is not what the Mercedes salesmen will want to hear. That, more than anything else, will cause him problems with the management.
And on other notes, congratulations to Ricci and Red Bull.
twitter.com/The_SSP_/status/503283012562616320/photo/1
Rugby is the football game where the referee is respected.
That one?
Or is it another Darling?
Dear Dear , Toom Tabard is alive and well.
And thanks for reminding us that Darling is trusted 39:1 over Salmond among No voting pensioners.
And you were an MP, I think for 13 years? So effectively you got more than £50,000 per year in pension contributions - somewhere around 75% of an MP's salary
Do you think that it is just that MPs should have so much better pension provision than the poor saps who vote for them?
twitter.com/The_SSP_/status/503283012562616320/photo/1
Lewis Hamilton claims Mercedes team-mate Nico Rosberg admitted in a post-race meeting that he deliberately hit him during Sunday's Belgian Grand Prix.
Hamilton's race was effectively ended when he suffered a puncture on lap two at Spa after Rosberg collided with him.
The German went on to finish second, extending his lead in the championship to 29 points with seven races left.
"We just had a meeting about it and he basically said he did it on purpose," said Hamilton.
The 2008 world champion added: "He said he could have avoided it, but he didn't want to. He basically said, 'I did it to prove a point'."
If true, then Rosberg surely deserves to be penalised by his team
Discuss Salmond's trust rating among pensioners then.....
I'm not sure that helps either.
I'd tend to look at an interview as the basis for making the decision
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11053657/Call-to-strip-British-citizenship-from-traitors-who-fight-for-Isil.html
http://britannicaparty.blogspot.com/?m=1
No smear to low eh?
Labour MPs typically prefer soccer
As ever, everything is wonderful in YESNP land and the fact that 96% of pensioners intending to vote no are concerned about their pensions in SINDY is of no consequence and their views may be dismissed.
As for Charlie Ballie's Britannica Party - I suspect you have a narrow minded obsessive kindred spirit on the other side of the fence!