Yesterday I posted the average over the last three YouGov polls of the share of the 2010 vote from each party moving to UKIP.
Those shares are (Con - Lab - Lib Dem): 17 - 6 - 10
The shares from today's YouGov are: 15 - 8 - 10
Although it's early days yet there is not yet any sign of Carswell's defection to UKIP putting off Lab-UKIP swing votes, as suggested yesterday by some posters.
Mr. G, Salmond cannot (unless he's wealthier than I imagined) guarantee deposits up to 85,000 (is that pounds, or euros?).
A central bank can.
The only ways the deposit guarantee can remain is: 1) currency union (pound or euro) 2) a Scottish currency
Why sterlingisation even remains on the table perplexes me. Maybe it's clever bluffing, and if Yes wins it'll be swept away for sound economic reasons, having served its purpose convincing people to vote for independence.
Why could Scotland not have a central bank
If Scotland uses the pound but is not in a monetary union with rUK then the Bank of England will not stand behind a foreign country's bank (RBS?) in a crisis; nor print money to support a foreign country's government economic policy; nor stand behind deposit guarantees if the foreign country bank's backup fund runs out.
Similarly interest rates will be set by the Bank of England to suit rUK and Scotland will have to accept them (plus a bit for extra risk). At present the Monetary Policy Committee takes account of the Scottish economy in its decisions alongside other parts of the UK.
If Scotland has its own currency then a 'Bank of Scotland' can adopt all the above functions but it needs its own currency to do so.
So Scottish pounds then pegged to whatever other currency we want. Currently the MPC does what is good for London.
You're finally coming round to the idea of an independent currency? Pour yourself a celebratory whiskey.
Mr. G, sterlingisation would be awful for Scotland.
Foreign country sets your rates, and you have no lender of last resort to back up deposits or financial institutions.
As the eurozone has shown us, one currency for varying countries does not work, because no one interest rate can work for divergent economies. Of course, Scotland could go for sterlingisation without UK approval or agreement, but why not go for a Scottish pound instead? Then you actually get independence, and can set your own rates, as well as having a lender of last resort.
MD why would Scotland exclusively in the world not be able to manage. They will choose the best option and apply it. If only some of the experts on here were in government setting policies , we would not be bankrupt and borrowing over £2B per day. Can you advise how the UK is going to survive borrowing at these levels on top of £1.5 trillion debt ad infinitum. Answer is not that they will cut debt or borrowing as it continues to increase. Scotland could not possibly be more incompetent than current UK.
Mr. G, sterlingisation would be awful for Scotland.
Foreign country sets your rates, and you have no lender of last resort to back up deposits or financial institutions.
As the eurozone has shown us, one currency for varying countries does not work, because no one interest rate can work for divergent economies. Of course, Scotland could go for sterlingisation without UK approval or agreement, but why not go for a Scottish pound instead? Then you actually get independence, and can set your own rates, as well as having a lender of last resort.
MD why would Scotland exclusively in the world not be able to manage. They will choose the best option and apply it. If only some of the experts on here were in government setting policies , we would not be bankrupt and borrowing over £2B per day. Can you advise how the UK is going to survive borrowing at these levels on top of £1.5 trillion debt ad infinitum. Answer is not that they will cut debt or borrowing as it continues to increase. Scotland could not possibly be more incompetent than current UK.
Presumably that borrowing is paying for benefits and services.
What cuts would you make in an independent Scotland? Health, Dole money, police numbers? Go on, enlighten us.
There is something strange about our morality towards children. 144 have been seriously abused in Rotherham many having being put into care after being abused at home. A pretty dire situation and hardly surprising that politicians are looking for people to blame.......
So isn't is odd that a few weeks ago when Israel-to many in this country our kith and kin-were not only abusing children but incinerating them on an industrial scale yet from our politicians there was just a muted response.
Indeed our Prime Minister announced that Israel had the right to defend itself. In other words the death and mutilation not to mention the traumatization of children is acceptable under certain circumstances.
Perhaps the real message was that Palestinian children don't have the same value as other children because of their circumstances......
Mr. G, Salmond cannot (unless he's wealthier than I imagined) guarantee deposits up to 85,000 (is that pounds, or euros?).
A central bank can.
The only ways the deposit guarantee can remain is: 1) currency union (pound or euro) 2) a Scottish currency
Why sterlingisation even remains on the table perplexes me. Maybe it's clever bluffing, and if Yes wins it'll be swept away for sound economic reasons, having served its purpose convincing people to vote for independence.
Why could Scotland not have a central bank
If Scotland uses the pound but is not in a monetary union with rUK then the Bank of England will not stand behind a foreign country's bank (RBS?) in a crisis; nor print money to support a foreign country's government economic policy; nor stand behind deposit guarantees if the foreign country bank's backup fund runs out.
Similarly interest rates will be set by the Bank of England to suit rUK and Scotland will have to accept them (plus a bit for extra risk). At present the Monetary Policy Committee takes account of the Scottish economy in its decisions alongside other parts of the UK.
If Scotland has its own currency then a 'Bank of Scotland' can adopt all the above functions but it needs its own currency to do so.
So Scottish pounds then pegged to whatever other currency we want. Currently the MPC does what is good for London.
You're finally coming round to the idea of an independent currency? Pour yourself a celebratory whiskey.
I don't care what the currency is , it is obvious there will be one and it will be no worse than the current one. That is what you idiots cannot grasp.
There is something strange about our morality towards children. 144 have been seriously abused in Rotherham many having being put into care after being abused at home. A pretty dire situation and hardly surprising that politicians are looking for people to blame.......
So isn't is odd that a few weeks ago when Israel-to many in this country our kith and kin-were not only abusing children but incinerating them on an industrial scale yet from our politicians there was just a muted response.
Indeed our Prime Minister announced that Israel had the right to defend itself. In other words the death and mutilation not to mention the traumatization of children is acceptable under certain circumstances.
Perhaps the real message was that Palestinian children do not have the same value as other children because of their circumstances......
...which brings us back to Rotherham.
Hardly a new phenomonen. Child soldiers and control by rape have been features of Central Africa for decades, and yet the civilized world seems content to tut and go back to reading celebrity gossip.
Mr. G, sterlingisation would be awful for Scotland.
Foreign country sets your rates, and you have no lender of last resort to back up deposits or financial institutions.
As the eurozone has shown us, one currency for varying countries does not work, because no one interest rate can work for divergent economies. Of course, Scotland could go for sterlingisation without UK approval or agreement, but why not go for a Scottish pound instead? Then you actually get independence, and can set your own rates, as well as having a lender of last resort.
MD why would Scotland exclusively in the world not be able to manage. They will choose the best option and apply it. If only some of the experts on here were in government setting policies , we would not be bankrupt and borrowing over £2B per day. Can you advise how the UK is going to survive borrowing at these levels on top of £1.5 trillion debt ad infinitum. Answer is not that they will cut debt or borrowing as it continues to increase. Scotland could not possibly be more incompetent than current UK.
Presumably that borrowing is paying for benefits and services.
What cuts would you make in an independent Scotland? Health, Dole money, police numbers? Go on, enlighten us.
We would just use the money currently propping up UK wars and scams and so no need for cuts.
Have to go out, genuinely, sorry - but much of it is a negative which I cannot therefore prove, obviously, and the rest you will be familiar with. If you need to refresh your memory on what has been a loooong campaign, you could check out the Wee Blue Book on wingsoverscotland.com - I am sure it will have germane facts (from the unionist side) and comment, and almost certainly the necessary references.
As for failue to pay the debt, (a) there is no such thing now the Treasury has spoken, and (b) it would only happen if EWNI had welshed in the first place.
I see you adopt the Swinney approach that the other side won't mind on the debt....good luck with that! When has rUK ever been asked if it wanted a currency union?
You keep using that NO apologist Tomkins as being right about everything. The man is a buffoon.
Well,he is a law Professor at Glasgow University - remind us of your legal qualifications?
I don't say that lightly, but you're comparing a long-running political and military conflict to the rape of over a thousand children in care in a single British town (with many more elsewhere possible). It's a nonsense.
And if you really want to talk about children suffering in war, look at ISIS, which has crucified children and radicalised others.
The desire by some to change the subject baffles me. Just how many raped children does it take to be worthy of discussion without diversion?
Mr. G, Salmond cannot (unless he's wealthier than I imagined) guarantee deposits up to 85,000 (is that pounds, or euros?).
A central bank can.
The only ways the deposit guarantee can remain is: 1) currency union (pound or euro) 2) a Scottish currency
Why sterlingisation even remains on the table perplexes me. Maybe it's clever bluffing, and if Yes wins it'll be swept away for sound economic reasons, having served its purpose convincing people to vote for independence.
Why could Scotland not have a central bank
If Scotland uses the pound but is not in a monetary union with rUK then the Bank of England will not stand behind a foreign country's bank (RBS?) in a crisis; nor print money to support a foreign country's government economic policy; nor stand behind deposit guarantees if the foreign country bank's backup fund runs out.
Similarly interest rates will be set by the Bank of England to suit rUK and Scotland will have to accept them (plus a bit for extra risk). At present the Monetary Policy Committee takes account of the Scottish economy in its decisions alongside other parts of the UK.
If Scotland has its own currency then a 'Bank of Scotland' can adopt all the above functions but it needs its own currency to do so.
So Scottish pounds then pegged to whatever other currency we want. Currently the MPC does what is good for London.
You're finally coming round to the idea of an independent currency? Pour yourself a celebratory whiskey.
People in power are always tempted to abuse that power, our defence is supposed to be our judicial system and police. It would appear that they have an equal amount of corruption and self interest as the rest of our institutions and businesses, while they all preach morality towards the general population.
Do you have any evidence at all for your repeated allegations of judicial corruption, beyond speculation, insinuation and innuendo?
There is something strange about our morality towards children. 144 have been seriously abused in Rotherham many having being put into care after being abused at home. A pretty dire situation and hardly surprising that politicians are looking for people to blame.......
So isn't is odd that a few weeks ago when Israel-to many in this country our kith and kin-were not only abusing children but incinerating them on an industrial scale yet from our politicians there was just a muted response.
Indeed our Prime Minister announced that Israel had the right to defend itself. In other words the death and mutilation not to mention the traumatization of children is acceptable under certain circumstances.
Perhaps the real message was that Palestinian children don't have the same value as other children because of their circumstances......
...which brings us back to Rotherham.
Even odder that Miliband is happy to condemn the alleged atrocities against Muslim children in Palestine but is silent about independently verified abuse by Muslims against white children in the town next door.
Mr. G, Salmond cannot (unless he's wealthier than I imagined) guarantee deposits up to 85,000 (is that pounds, or euros?).
A central bank can.
The only ways the deposit guarantee can remain is: 1) currency union (pound or euro) 2) a Scottish currency
Why sterlingisation even remains on the table perplexes me. Maybe it's clever bluffing, and if Yes wins it'll be swept away for sound economic reasons, having served its purpose convincing people to vote for independence.
Why could Scotland not have a central bank
If Scotland uses the pound but is not in a monetary union with rUK then the Bank of England will not stand behind a foreign country's bank (RBS?) in a crisis; nor print money to support a foreign country's government economic policy; nor stand behind deposit guarantees if the foreign country bank's backup fund runs out.
Similarly interest rates will be set by the Bank of England to suit rUK and Scotland will have to accept them (plus a bit for extra risk). At present the Monetary Policy Committee takes account of the Scottish economy in its decisions alongside other parts of the UK.
If Scotland has its own currency then a 'Bank of Scotland' can adopt all the above functions but it needs its own currency to do so.
So Scottish pounds then pegged to whatever other currency we want. Currently the MPC does what is good for London.
You're finally coming round to the idea of an independent currency? Pour yourself a celebratory whiskey.
I really hope Roger Lord stands as an independent in Clacton. He really is tremendous value.
Yes, Roger Lord is a proper Kipper, not one of those Johnny-come-lately Carswell sorts.
I don't like the way ukip is hiding behind the by election rules argument. Kind of fag paper thin argument you normally get on here to justify wrong behaviour
They should have just said the obvious, we have a better chance of winning with Carswell, and offered Lord a different seat that he had the same chance or better in as Clacton... There are plenty in Essex
Mr. G, sterlingisation would be awful for Scotland.
Foreign country sets your rates, and you have no lender of last resort to back up deposits or financial institutions.
As the eurozone has shown us, one currency for varying countries does not work, because no one interest rate can work for divergent economies. Of course, Scotland could go for sterlingisation without UK approval or agreement, but why not go for a Scottish pound instead? Then you actually get independence, and can set your own rates, as well as having a lender of last resort.
MD why would Scotland exclusively in the world not be able to manage. They will choose the best option and apply it. If only some of the experts on here were in government setting policies , we would not be bankrupt and borrowing over £2B per day. Can you advise how the UK is going to survive borrowing at these levels on top of £1.5 trillion debt ad infinitum. Answer is not that they will cut debt or borrowing as it continues to increase. Scotland could not possibly be more incompetent than current UK.
Presumably that borrowing is paying for benefits and services.
What cuts would you make in an independent Scotland? Health, Dole money, police numbers? Go on, enlighten us.
We would just use the money currently propping up UK wars and scams and so no need for cuts.
Care to elaborate on these 'wars and scams'? Sensible question, why not give a reasonable answer.
It has been illuminating to listen to left-wingers today fulminating against the 'racism' of those obsessed by Rotherham. Easy to see how the abuse was tolerated and even flourished when junior staff raised issues - no doubt their concerns were shot down in much the same way.
Would an independent Scotland remain in the EU? The SNP have a terrible record of making-it-up-as-they-go-along on this question. Even now they are still at it.
In December 2007 Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon told the Scottish Parliament that an independent Scotland would “automatically” become a member state of the European Union, that there would be no need for an independent Scotland to renegotiate EU membership and that this position was supported by both political and legal opinion. Utter fantasy.
There is something strange about our morality towards children. 144 have been seriously abused in Rotherham many having being put into care after being abused at home. A pretty dire situation and hardly surprising that politicians are looking for people to blame.......
So isn't is odd that a few weeks ago when Israel-to many in this country our kith and kin-were not only abusing children but incinerating them on an industrial scale yet from our politicians there was just a muted response.
Indeed our Prime Minister announced that Israel had the right to defend itself. In other words the death and mutilation not to mention the traumatization of children is acceptable under certain circumstances.
Perhaps the real message was that Palestinian children don't have the same value as other children because of their circumstances......
...which brings us back to Rotherham.
Even odder that Miliband is happy to condemn the alleged atrocities against Muslim children in Palestine but is silent about independently verified abuse by Muslims against white children in the town next door.
I don't say that lightly, but you're comparing a long-running political and military conflict to the rape of over a thousand children in care in a single British town (with many more elsewhere possible). It's a nonsense.
And if you really want to talk about children suffering in war, look at ISIS, which has crucified children and radicalised others.
The desire by some to change the subject baffles me. Just how many raped children does it take to be worthy of discussion without diversion?
To be fair to Roger he is at least consistent in his dismissal of rape allegations.
Have to go out, genuinely, sorry - but much of it is a negative which I cannot therefore prove, obviously, and the rest you will be familiar with. If you need to refresh your memory on what has been a loooong campaign, you could check out the Wee Blue Book on wingsoverscotland.com - I am sure it will have germane facts (from the unionist side) and comment, and almost certainly the necessary references.
As for failue to pay the debt, (a) there is no such thing now the Treasury has spoken, and (b) it would only happen if EWNI had welshed in the first place.
I see you adopt the Swinney approach that the other side won't mind on the debt....good luck with that! When has rUK ever been asked if it wanted a currency union?
You keep using that NO apologist Tomkins as being right about everything. The man is a buffoon.
Well,he is a law Professor at Glasgow University - remind us of your legal qualifications?
Or better yet, play the ball, not the man?
LOL, you are easily pleased , Robert Mugabe has a degree do you believe everything he says. The man ( Tomkins ) is a biased moron and so no matter how clever he is, he is not to be listened to. Anyone who is in his position and puts forward one sided false arguments is not up to much.
Mr. G, Salmond cannot (unless he's wealthier than I imagined) guarantee deposits up to 85,000 (is that pounds, or euros?).
A central bank can.
The only ways the deposit guarantee can remain is: 1) currency union (pound or euro) 2) a Scottish currency
Why sterlingisation even remains on the table perplexes me. Maybe it's clever bluffing, and if Yes wins it'll be swept away for sound economic reasons, having served its purpose convincing people to vote for independence.
Why could Scotland not have a central bank
If Scotland uses the pound but is not in a monetary union with rUK then the Bank of England will not stand behind a foreign country's bank (RBS?) in a crisis; nor print money to support a foreign country's government economic policy; nor stand behind deposit guarantees if the foreign country bank's backup fund runs out.
Similarly interest rates will be set by the Bank of England to suit rUK and Scotland will have to accept them (plus a bit for extra risk). At present the Monetary Policy Committee takes account of the Scottish economy in its decisions alongside other parts of the UK.
If Scotland has its own currency then a 'Bank of Scotland' can adopt all the above functions but it needs its own currency to do so.
So Scottish pounds then pegged to whatever other currency we want. Currently the MPC does what is good for London.
You're finally coming round to the idea of an independent currency? Pour yourself a celebratory whiskey.
I've also heard some victims were Asian, but it's not clear if that's a tiny minority or a very significant number (likewise, I'd be astounded if *every* perpetrator or accused were Pakistani, but it does seem a great many of those alleged to have abused children are).
I fear that up and down the country, but perhaps most especially in this part of the land, council shredders will be whirring tirelessly to try and get rid of unhelpful documents.
Mr. G, Salmond cannot (unless he's wealthier than I imagined) guarantee deposits up to 85,000 (is that pounds, or euros?).
A central bank can.
The only ways the deposit guarantee can remain is: 1) currency union (pound or euro) 2) a Scottish currency
Why sterlingisation even remains on the table perplexes me. Maybe it's clever bluffing, and if Yes wins it'll be swept away for sound economic reasons, having served its purpose convincing people to vote for independence.
Why could Scotland not have a central bank
If Scotland uses the pound but is not in a monetary union with rUK then the Bank of England will not stand behind a foreign country's bank (RBS?) in a crisis; nor print money to support a foreign country's government economic policy; nor stand behind deposit guarantees if the foreign country bank's backup fund runs out.
Similarly interest rates will be set by the Bank of England to suit rUK and Scotland will have to accept them (plus a bit for extra risk). At present the Monetary Policy Committee takes account of the Scottish economy in its decisions alongside other parts of the UK.
If Scotland has its own currency then a 'Bank of Scotland' can adopt all the above functions but it needs its own currency to do so.
So Scottish pounds then pegged to whatever other currency we want. Currently the MPC does what is good for London.
You're finally coming round to the idea of an independent currency? Pour yourself a celebratory whiskey.
I know this might annoy Morris Dancer but I am going to raise a new but happy topic:
"Worried about Britain’s poor social mobility? Here’s a way to change things"
Is the title to an article in the Speccie which I have just read and would urge all of you to do so too, especially if you are involved in employing people:
One of the innovations that really caught my eye was this:
"At The Spectator, we now have a specific recruitment policy for jobs and internships: we ask applicants not to include education on their CVs. It’s just not a factor in journalism: Frank Johnson didn’t even finish school and he was one of the greatest editors of this magazine. We have an intern starting next week (who responded to this blog), and none of us have the faintest idea about his background. Just his abilities."
I don't say that lightly, but you're comparing a long-running political and military conflict to the rape of over a thousand children in care in a single British town (with many more elsewhere possible). It's a nonsense.
And if you really want to talk about children suffering in war, look at ISIS, which has crucified children and radicalised others.
The desire by some to change the subject baffles me. Just how many raped children does it take to be worthy of discussion without diversion?
To be fair to Roger he is at least consistent in his dismissal of rape allegations.
Have to go out, genuinely, sorry - but much of it is a negative which I cannot therefore prove, obviously, and the rest you will be familiar with. If you need to refresh your memory on what has been a loooong campaign, you could check out the Wee Blue Book on wingsoverscotland.com - I am sure it will have germane facts (from the unionist side) and comment, and almost certainly the necessary references.
As for failue to pay the debt, (a) there is no such thing now the Treasury has spoken, and (b) it would only happen if EWNI had welshed in the first place.
I see you adopt the Swinney approach that the other side won't mind on the debt....good luck with that! When has rUK ever been asked if it wanted a currency union?
You keep using that NO apologist Tomkins as being right about everything. The man is a buffoon.
Well,he is a law Professor at Glasgow University - remind us of your legal qualifications?
Or better yet, play the ball, not the man?
no matter how clever he is, he is not to be listened to.
@Life_ina_market_town Being a lawyer yourself, you could no doubt prove that the police are whiter than white, businesses and the financial sector are merely guilty of minor oversights, politicians are without taint, and the judicial system is fair and just, from benefit cheats to the libor fixers. The fact that all these groups know each other at a personal level (except the benefits cheats), and mix freely in each others company, often with the same school ties, is proof of their incorruptibility. I hold the opinion that you are talking bullcr*p, and you know it, or your lack of awareness of current affairs is more woeful than a primary five schoolchild. Try reading a paper some day instead of trying to prop up a system that has become little more than an inherited monarchy and baronial system of back scratching. Our unwritten constitution is supposed to work on "honour" and "duty", but neither of these shows much monetary profit.
I don't say that lightly, but you're comparing a long-running political and military conflict to the rape of over a thousand children in care in a single British town (with many more elsewhere possible). It's a nonsense.
And if you really want to talk about children suffering in war, look at ISIS, which has crucified children and radicalised others.
The desire by some to change the subject baffles me. Just how many raped children does it take to be worthy of discussion without diversion?
To be fair to Roger he is at least consistent in his dismissal of rape allegations.
Mr. G, Salmond cannot (unless he's wealthier than I imagined) guarantee deposits up to 85,000 (is that pounds, or euros?).
A central bank can.
The only ways the deposit guarantee can remain is: 1) currency union (pound or euro) 2) a Scottish currency
Why sterlingisation even remains on the table perplexes me. Maybe it's clever bluffing, and if Yes wins it'll be swept away for sound economic reasons, having served its purpose convincing people to vote for independence.
Why could Scotland not have a central bank
If Scotland uses the pound but is not in a monetary union with rUK then the Bank of England will not stand behind a foreign country's bank (RBS?) in a crisis; nor print money to support a foreign country's government economic policy; nor stand behind deposit guarantees if the foreign country bank's backup fund runs out.
Similarly interest rates will be set by the Bank of England to suit rUK and Scotland will have to accept them (plus a bit for extra risk). At present the Monetary Policy Committee takes account of the Scottish economy in its decisions alongside other parts of the UK.
If Scotland has its own currency then a 'Bank of Scotland' can adopt all the above functions but it needs its own currency to do so.
So Scottish pounds then pegged to whatever other currency we want. Currently the MPC does what is good for London.
You're finally coming round to the idea of an independent currency? Pour yourself a celebratory whiskey.
Or better yet, Whisky?
He does not have the capacity to understand the difference.
Mr. Llama, nothing against various things being discussed. Everything against trying to prevent the Rotherham case (and related cases) being discussed or diminishing the scale and tragedy of what has happened.
Have to go out, genuinely, sorry - but much of it is a negative which I cannot therefore prove, obviously, and the rest you will be familiar with. If you need to refresh your memory on what has been a loooong campaign, you could check out the Wee Blue Book on wingsoverscotland.com - I am sure it will have germane facts (from the unionist side) and comment, and almost certainly the necessary references.
As for failue to pay the debt, (a) there is no such thing now the Treasury has spoken, and (b) it would only happen if EWNI had welshed in the first place.
I see you adopt the Swinney approach that the other side won't mind on the debt....good luck with that! When has rUK ever been asked if it wanted a currency union?
You keep using that NO apologist Tomkins as being right about everything. The man is a buffoon.
Well,he is a law Professor at Glasgow University - remind us of your legal qualifications?
Or better yet, play the ball, not the man?
no matter how clever he is, he is not to be listened to.
Nationalists in a nutshell
Never trust people who are economical with the truth
Mr. G, Salmond cannot (unless he's wealthier than I imagined) guarantee deposits up to 85,000 (is that pounds, or euros?).
A central bank can.
The only ways the deposit guarantee can remain is: 1) currency union (pound or euro) 2) a Scottish currency
Why sterlingisation even remains on the table perplexes me. Maybe it's clever bluffing, and if Yes wins it'll be swept away for sound economic reasons, having served its purpose convincing people to vote for independence.
Why could Scotland not have a central bank
If Scotland uses the pound but is not in a monetary union with rUK then the Bank of England will not stand behind a foreign country's bank (RBS?) in a crisis; nor print money to support a foreign country's government economic policy; nor stand behind deposit guarantees if the foreign country bank's backup fund runs out.
Similarly interest rates will be set by the Bank of England to suit rUK and Scotland will have to accept them (plus a bit for extra risk). At present the Monetary Policy Committee takes account of the Scottish economy in its decisions alongside other parts of the UK.
If Scotland has its own currency then a 'Bank of Scotland' can adopt all the above functions but it needs its own currency to do so.
So Scottish pounds then pegged to whatever other currency we want. Currently the MPC does what is good for London.
You're finally coming round to the idea of an independent currency? Pour yourself a celebratory whiskey.
Or better yet, Whisky?
He does not have the capacity to understand the difference.
You're easily diverted by a deliberate misspelling, or McCatnip.
Now, what of these 'wars and scams' that you mentioned down thread?
@Richard_Nabavi He admitted it on tape, and he knew he was being filmed, are you saying he was incompetent and stupid? Or perhaps it was a jest?
Have you actually read the quote? It's clearly not meant as a serious point, but as a light-hearted way of saying that the whips kept tabs on MPs. It is certainly nowhere near anything like 'evidence' or an 'admission'.
I'm afraid not, Richard.
I've seen the interview concerned and he preceded it with the example of MPs having financial problems. Not much sign of jocularity there.
Furthermore, I've noticed a particular kind of humour where an outrageous truth is told, but everybody laughs as they all think it's a gag. See Jimmy Savile's appearance on HIGNFY for an example. Audience laughs, Ian Hislop does not.
It seems somewhat ironic that an independent Scotland using sterlingisation, may have to say goodbye to its banknotes, and use the ones printed by the Bank of England instead.
Imagine the amusement to be had by putting Thatcher on the back of the £10 note.
And perhaps something to remind us of another Scottish last leap into the dark, namely the Darien Scheme, to which I can see certain parallels...
How desperate can you get , why not compare it with the London fiasco in 2008 you stupid turnip headed halfwit. I think £1.5 trillion lost by those duffers far outweighs something from centuries ago. What a pathetic drivelling, halfwitted, moronic, cretinous, thick, stupid oaf you are.
Mr. G, sterlingisation would be awful for Scotland.
Foreign country sets your rates, and you have no lender of last resort to back up deposits or financial institutions.
As the eurozone has shown us, one currency for varying countries does not work, because no one interest rate can work for divergent economies. Of course, Scotland could go for sterlingisation without UK approval or agreement, but why not go for a Scottish pound instead? Then you actually get independence, and can set your own rates, as well as having a lender of last resort.
All true but in the short term, the Scottish economy is already as aligned with the rest of the UK's as it will ever be.
It has been illuminating to listen to left-wingers today fulminating against the 'racism' of those obsessed by Rotherham. Easy to see how the abuse was tolerated and even flourished when junior staff raised issues - no doubt their concerns were shot down in much the same way.
Mostly by left wing posters who live in indigenous white area's and wouldn't have a clue about multicultural Britain if it bitten them on the ar$e.
Mr. G, Salmond cannot (unless he's wealthier than I imagined) guarantee deposits up to 85,000 (is that pounds, or euros?).
A central bank can.
The only ways the deposit guarantee can remain is: 1) currency union (pound or euro) 2) a Scottish currency
Why sterlingisation even remains on the table perplexes me. Maybe it's clever bluffing, and if Yes wins it'll be swept away for sound economic reasons, having served its purpose convincing people to vote for independence.
Why could Scotland not have a central bank
If Scotland uses the pound but is not in a monetary union with rUK then the Bank of England will not stand behind a foreign country's bank (RBS?) in a crisis; nor print money to support a foreign country's government economic policy; nor stand behind deposit guarantees if the foreign country bank's backup fund runs out.
Similarly interest rates will be set by the Bank of England to suit rUK and Scotland will have to accept them (plus a bit for extra risk). At present the Monetary Policy Committee takes account of the Scottish economy in its decisions alongside other parts of the UK.
If Scotland has its own currency then a 'Bank of Scotland' can adopt all the above functions but it needs its own currency to do so.
So Scottish pounds then pegged to whatever other currency we want. Currently the MPC does what is good for London.
That last part is definitely not true. We have a ccompletely untamed housing bubble in London caused by low interest rates to suit the policy goals for the rest of the UK. Interest rates for London only would be closer to 2% to get the housing bubble under control.
The housing bubble in London is significantly driven by cash-rich buyers - bank and mortgage rate rises will do little to stem the movement.
Many years ago I was part of a group of colleagues that went to the pub on Saturday nights, one of which really didn't want to buy a round. It passed without comment, except that once at work it came up in conversation - it was thought by the others that X was too shy to go to the bar. But of course he didn't want to waste his money.
It is the same thought process that now excuses Ed Milliband for his silence. But of course he simply doesn't care about what happened, it is not personal to him. He isn't going to lose the votes anyway.
Comments
Those shares are (Con - Lab - Lib Dem):
17 - 6 - 10
The shares from today's YouGov are:
15 - 8 - 10
Although it's early days yet there is not yet any sign of Carswell's defection to UKIP putting off Lab-UKIP swing votes, as suggested yesterday by some posters.
Can you advise how the UK is going to survive borrowing at these levels on top of £1.5 trillion debt ad infinitum. Answer is not that they will cut debt or borrowing as it continues to increase. Scotland could not possibly be more incompetent than current UK.
What cuts would you make in an independent Scotland? Health, Dole money, police numbers? Go on, enlighten us.
Can we un-ban any banned Nats (or, for that matter Unionists) for the 18th & 19th Sep for 24-hour ding-dong & gloat-fest. Pandas galore!
Sort of a last hurrah before the topic is consigned to being another footnote in political history.
So isn't is odd that a few weeks ago when Israel-to many in this country our kith and kin-were not only abusing children but incinerating them on an industrial scale yet from our politicians there was just a muted response.
Indeed our Prime Minister announced that Israel had the right to defend itself. In other words the death and mutilation not to mention the traumatization of children is acceptable under certain circumstances.
Perhaps the real message was that Palestinian children don't have the same value as other children because of their circumstances......
...which brings us back to Rotherham.
Ladbrokes Politics @LadPolitics 1m
I really hope Roger Lord stands as an independent in Clacton. He really is tremendous value.
Edit: I did
Tamara Cohen @tamcohen 1m
Roger Lord tells Sky News he's going to 'rip his [Carswell's] throat out' Let's hope metaphorically...
So not new - but not right either.
Or better yet, play the ball, not the man?
I don't say that lightly, but you're comparing a long-running political and military conflict to the rape of over a thousand children in care in a single British town (with many more elsewhere possible). It's a nonsense.
And if you really want to talk about children suffering in war, look at ISIS, which has crucified children and radicalised others.
The desire by some to change the subject baffles me. Just how many raped children does it take to be worthy of discussion without diversion?
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2014/08/29/ukip-is-full-of-racists-and-lunatics-but-carswell-s-done-us
They should have just said the obvious, we have a better chance of winning with Carswell, and offered Lord a different seat that he had the same chance or better in as Clacton... There are plenty in Essex
Tat it may be, if you are drunk on YESNP Koolaid, but it's not old - it was published today.
Anyone who is in his position and puts forward one sided false arguments is not up to much.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11061538/EU-to-ban-high-energy-hair-dryers-smartphones-and-kettles.html
You certainly have to think so!
http://www.masterofmalt.com/whisky-or-whiskey/
Full of loons, fruitcakes and racists.
I've also heard some victims were Asian, but it's not clear if that's a tiny minority or a very significant number (likewise, I'd be astounded if *every* perpetrator or accused were Pakistani, but it does seem a great many of those alleged to have abused children are).
I fear that up and down the country, but perhaps most especially in this part of the land, council shredders will be whirring tirelessly to try and get rid of unhelpful documents.
Do you think they've put any more loonies and fruitcakes up for election?
Douglas Carswell MP (@DouglasCarswell)
29/08/2014 12:39
#Clacton calling blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglasca…
"Worried about Britain’s poor social mobility? Here’s a way to change things"
Is the title to an article in the Speccie which I have just read and would urge all of you to do so too, especially if you are involved in employing people:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/08/worried-about-social-mobility-heres-a-way-to-change-things/
One of the innovations that really caught my eye was this:
"At The Spectator, we now have a specific recruitment policy for jobs and internships: we ask applicants not to include education on their CVs. It’s just not a factor in journalism: Frank Johnson didn’t even finish school and he was one of the greatest editors of this magazine. We have an intern starting next week (who responded to this blog), and none of us have the faintest idea about his background. Just his abilities."
This is one getting tired and slow to load.
Being a lawyer yourself, you could no doubt prove that the police are whiter than white, businesses and the financial sector are merely guilty of minor oversights, politicians are without taint, and the judicial system is fair and just, from benefit cheats to the libor fixers.
The fact that all these groups know each other at a personal level (except the benefits cheats), and mix freely in each others company, often with the same school ties, is proof of their incorruptibility.
I hold the opinion that you are talking bullcr*p, and you know it, or your lack of awareness of current affairs is more woeful than a primary five schoolchild.
Try reading a paper some day instead of trying to prop up a system that has become little more than an inherited monarchy and baronial system of back scratching.
Our unwritten constitution is supposed to work on "honour" and "duty", but neither of these shows much monetary profit.
If only authorities cared so much about the thousands of "in-care" children not safely in their beds each night?
Now, what of these 'wars and scams' that you mentioned down thread?
http://www.lbc.co.uk/ukips-roger-lord-considering-defecting-to-tories-96215
I've seen the interview concerned and he preceded it with the example of MPs having financial problems. Not much sign of jocularity there.
Furthermore, I've noticed a particular kind of humour where an outrageous truth is told, but everybody laughs as they all think it's a gag. See Jimmy Savile's appearance on HIGNFY for an example. Audience laughs, Ian Hislop does not.
It is the same thought process that now excuses Ed Milliband for his silence. But of course he simply doesn't care about what happened, it is not personal to him. He isn't going to lose the votes anyway.