Luckyguy, I am not saying don't expect anything from government, ever. My message is: don't think your incredibly simplistic ideas haven't been considered, tested, even implemented by others and found to be lacking.
There is much to criticise this and previous governments for. There is also much to praise them for. We live in an era of extraordinary prosperity and relative peace, with schools that educate us, hospitals that heal us, politicians who are accountable to us, abundant leisure time and facilities, high levels of employment, flowing taps, operational sanitation, good public transport etc etc. While governments should be challenged constantly to improve, by any reasonable historical and global perspective, we are actually quite well governed.
I fear people are losing sight of that, even if, in light of Rotherham and many other failures, I can't blame them for doing so.
"Flowing taps"?!?
There you go Kippers, what are you whinging about? Behold the miracle of running water!
You cannot have education without money to fund it, nobody mentioned money per student. Barnett only looks good because it does not take into account Scotland's revenue. If done correctly we get much less than we pay in , but the money i siphoned off to fool plebs like you that you subsidise Scotland. Given England controls Scotland's budget , Scotland cannot ever have control of its education whilst that is the case. It has the responsibility for sure but not the power.
Even if we buy your debateable figures about how much Scotland deserves from the oil, London also gets less than it pays in - and a gap that's much,much larger than Scotland.
Kind of goes against your other point that the country is run for the benefit of London doesn't it?
Luckyguy, I am not saying don't expect anything from government, ever. My message is: don't think your incredibly simplistic ideas haven't been considered, tested, even implemented by others and found to be lacking.
There is much to criticise this and previous governments for. There is also much to praise them for. We live in an era of extraordinary prosperity and relative peace, with schools that educate us, hospitals that heal us, politicians who are accountable to us, abundant leisure time and facilities, high levels of employment, flowing taps, operational sanitation, good public transport etc etc. While governments should be challenged constantly to improve, by any reasonable historical and global perspective, we are actually quite well governed.
I fear people are losing sight of that, even if, in light of Rotherham and many other failures, I can't blame them for doing so.
Simplistic, no. Basic to any vaguely competent Government, yes. As an example perhaps you can find another country with a national debt of the same order as ours which continues to operate such a bloated quangocracy? Cameron's Government itself promised a 'bonfire of the quangos' that has never happened.
Nothing I mentioned was even vaguely un-manifesto-able.
Flowing taps? That's what we should be grateful for is it. For goodness sake.
If FN win, we won't have to worry about renegotiating with the EU. The French will pull the plug on the organisation.
Disagree: 1) The voters would probably vote to stay, and since Lisbon the EU is institutionally fortified against one member state dicking around so it could survive an FN-led member state. 2) The EU without France would be a different kind of thing, but it would still be a thing. In any case everyone would presumably just leave the French to sort their shit out and wait until they asked to be let in again.
Care to step back from your impotent rage to tell us how 'saving' the Harrier GR9 fleet would have improved military effectiveness? In addition, how the previous out-of-service date of 2018 for the GR9's would have been much use on the Queen Elizabeth, which is only due in initial service in 2017?
Whilst you are at it, you may want to look at the differences between the GR9's and the Sea Harriers, and see why the former are not particularly suited for naval warfare, especially Falklands-style operations.
Perhaps it would be simpler if you could explain to me how the carrier works better with *no* planes than *some* planes.
Arts Council -hogwash. This quango was for the chop by Cameron anyway, with good reason, but he backed down. The Arts Council distributes funding that could till be distributed to much greater effect by other bodies more focused on the heritage and tourism benefits that you mention.
My Foundation works quite closely with the Arts Council. They are making some very radical changes to their approach reflecting a steady reducing in grant-in-aid (£350m in 2014/15 vs £449m in 2010/11. What they are doing is much more strategic in nature, and I think has a great deal of value. On the quango point, they have consolidated a number of other quangos into ACE, so although the one people have heard of still remains a number of others have disappeared
Luckyguy - your answer doesn't make sense. You say France protected Danone, so Britain should protect British businesses. But one does not follow the other. Again I give you the example of Jaguar Land Rover. Or how about BAA? Now in foreign hands, investment in Heathrow has increased hugely and it is finally becoming a world class facility. You decry the strength of corporate Britain, but how do you think it compares to France? I submit that Britain has benefited hugely from having open markets that allow capital to be allocated efficiently and transactions to be done without political interference. Your "non-socialist" response is greater state power!
And citing Saudi Arabia rather proves my point - this is incredibly complex. Our foreign policy is often ham fisted, but unless you are about to unveil a very sophisticated alternative, you only have one option left: isolation. Or "carry on, dictator".
My Foundation works quite closely with the Arts Council. They are making some very radical changes to their approach reflecting a steady reducing in grant-in-aid (£350m in 2014/15 vs £449m in 2010/11. What they are doing is much more strategic in nature, and I think has a great deal of value. On the quango point, they have consolidated a number of other quangos into ACE, so although the one people have heard of still remains a number of others have disappeared
Luckyguy - your answer doesn't make sense. You say France protected Danone, so Britain should protect British businesses. But one does not follow the other. Again I give you the example of Jaguar Land Rover. Or how about BAA? Now in foreign hands, investment in Heathrow has increased hugely and it is finally becoming a world class facility. You decry the strength of corporate Britain, but how do you think it compares to France? I submit that Britain has benefited hugely from having open markets that allow capital to be allocated efficiently and transactions to be done without political interference. Your "non-socialist" response is greater state power!
And citing Saudi Arabia rather proves my point - this is incredibly complex. Our foreign policy is often ham fisted, but unless you are about to unveil a very sophisticated alternative, you only have one option left: isolation. Or "carry on, dictator".
Agree, if the FN are elected it is the end of the EU, though not necessarily because France chooses/votes to leave.
Why would MLP put it to the electorate? Or UKIP for that matter, it's on the tin as they say.
IIUC that's the policy. (Basically the same as Cameron's: Renegotiation followed by referendum, with the same likely result, except that the response of the other member states would be put more bluntly to MLP than to Cameron.)
I'm not sure if they'd stick with the referendum policy - I guess they would in that they'd be at least vaguely aware of the practical problems involved in leaving, and leaving on the back of a referendum win rather than unilaterally would reduce the political damage.
Care to step back from your impotent rage to tell us how 'saving' the Harrier GR9 fleet would have improved military effectiveness? In addition, how the previous out-of-service date of 2018 for the GR9's would have been much use on the Queen Elizabeth, which is only due in initial service in 2017?
Whilst you are at it, you may want to look at the differences between the GR9's and the Sea Harriers, and see why the former are not particularly suited for naval warfare, especially Falklands-style operations.
Perhaps it would be simpler if you could explain to me how the carrier works better with *no* planes than *some* planes.
Guido has a take on the Labour candidate in Clacton. Given the Survation poll, probably best for Ed to leave him in place and watch the Con/UKIP fight.
Agree, if the FN are elected it is the end of the EU, though not necessarily because France chooses/votes to leave.
Why would MLP put it to the electorate? Or UKIP for that matter, it's on the tin as they say.
IIUC that's the policy. (Basically the same as Cameron's: Renegotiation followed by referendum, with the same likely result, except that the response of the other member states would be put more bluntly to MLP than to Cameron.)
I'm not sure if they'd stick with the referendum policy - I guess they would in that they'd be at least vaguely aware of the practical problems involved in leaving, and leaving on the back of a referendum win rather than unilaterally would reduce the political damage.
If some party takes us out without a referendum then some party could take us back in without a referendum. But then again - take us where? And then again simply walking out is the last thing which will inspire international conficdence and inward investment. Even now companies will be reconsidering their investments. But then again take a look at UKIP and what it promises - its not simply the EU anymore - what it has realised it can peddle is fear, fear of immigrants and not simply new people coming in but those well established here. It is only offering hate and dispute. And UKIP's best bet - is a seat where there are no immigrants no muslims no 'coloureds', just gullible old fashiond pensioners. People with no jobs to lose if we leave the EU, people who have no idea about what it is they are told they should be afraid of.
Care to step back from your impotent rage to tell us how 'saving' the Harrier GR9 fleet would have improved military effectiveness? In addition, how the previous out-of-service date of 2018 for the GR9's would have been much use on the Queen Elizabeth, which is only due in initial service in 2017?
Whilst you are at it, you may want to look at the differences between the GR9's and the Sea Harriers, and see why the former are not particularly suited for naval warfare, especially Falklands-style operations.
Perhaps it would be simpler if you could explain to me how the carrier works better with *no* planes than *some* planes.
It's like saying because we don't have any racing cars we should just use go karts, they're better than nothing. It's that magnitude of capability loss.
But then again take a look at UKIP and what it promises - its not simply the EU anymore - what it has realised it can peddle is fear, fear of immigrants and not simply new people coming in but those well established here. It is only offering hate and dispute. And UKIP's best bet - is a seat where there are no immigrants no muslims no 'coloureds', just gullible old fashiond pensioners. People with no jobs to lose if we leave the EU, people who have no idea about what it is they are told they should be afraid of.
I wouldn't vote for them but TBF what you've described doesn't match Carswell's pitch, and in general I think they compare pretty well to parties in other countries occupying the same right-wing populist niche.
Got to check out now - some interesting racing on today - but I've thoroughly enjoyed the discussions of the last couple of days. They've been interesting and enlightening at times, and mercifully light on yah-boo politics.
You cannot have education without money to fund it, nobody mentioned money per student. Barnett only looks good because it does not take into account Scotland's revenue. If done correctly we get much less than we pay in , but the money i siphoned off to fool plebs like you that you subsidise Scotland. Given England controls Scotland's budget , Scotland cannot ever have control of its education whilst that is the case. It has the responsibility for sure but not the power.
Even if we buy your debateable figures about how much Scotland deserves from the oil, London also gets less than it pays in - and a gap that's much,much larger than Scotland.
Kind of goes against your other point that the country is run for the benefit of London doesn't it?
London is not a country, fact is there is a democratic deficiency in Scotland which can only be resolved by independence, given unionists have not allowed an option for federalism. I agree you can change it to the London Elite , who continue to prosper , up 15% last yer , whilst foodbanks and poverty flourish among the working class.
Simplistic, no. Basic to any vaguely competent Government, yes. As an example perhaps you can find another country with a national debt of the same order as ours which continues to operate such a bloated quangocracy? Cameron's Government itself promised a 'bonfire of the quangos' that has never happened.
Nothing I mentioned was even vaguely un-manifesto-able.
Flowing taps? That's what we should be grateful for is it. For goodness sake.
Flockers replies
Britain's quango state is the legacy of Major's reforms, which sought to reduce the role and size of Central government by outsourcing functions to semi-independent specialist and apolitical bodies. Other countries adopt different models, but even if they eschew quangos the money still generally needs to be spent and the functions still generally must be performed. Any comparison needs to look at overall state expenditure, not at quangos alone. That's not to defend Britain's system as unimprovable; clearly some quangos spend more than they should, don't offer value for money or are of dubious benefit. The government was right to focus on this, and doubtless more can be done, but there is no use pretending that it is as straight forward as shutting them all down.
I didn't say anything you said was un-manifesto-able. It would fit perfectly into the manifesto of a populist, insurgent, naive party with no experience of government and no competence to govern.
Nice of you to take "flowing taps" out of context, but again you inadvertently demonstrate your ignorance. Keeping a country supplied with water and sewerage, in an era of rising populations and urbanisation, climate change, intensive farming and industry and vastly increased domestic usage, is a complex business that involves balancing private business and public needs, and interaction with City and rural planners. And lots of money. In your lifetime you will see governments around the world get this wrong, and people die in large numbers.
Luckyguy - your answer doesn't make sense. You say France protected Danone, so Britain should protect British businesses. But one does not follow the other. Again I give you the example of Jaguar Land Rover. Or how about BAA? Now in foreign hands, investment in Heathrow has increased hugely and it is finally becoming a world class facility. You decry the strength of corporate Britain, but how do you think it compares to France? I submit that Britain has benefited hugely from having open markets that allow capital to be allocated efficiently and transactions to be done without political interference. Your "non-socialist" response is greater state power!
And citing Saudi Arabia rather proves my point - this is incredibly complex. Our foreign policy is often ham fisted, but unless you are about to unveil a very sophisticated alternative, you only have one option left: isolation. Or "carry on, dictator".
I'm not saying it's desirable, I am saying if other countries, including our biggest competitors do it, we must. France still has Danone. In place of Cadbury, despite 'assurances' from Kraft, we now have a small visitor attraction. It's all very well clucking over the unfairness of it, but there it is. As I said, it would be nice if the free market could be allowed to operate untrammeled, but sadly that's not the world we live in.
Jaguar, Landrover, and Mini etc. are British heritage brands, whose image benefits from a made in Britain tag. That's why production has been kept in the UK, and that's fantastic. Most products are not the same, and it doesn't take long for production facilities to close once the company has been taken over.
My citing of Saudi Arabia doesn't prove your point whatsoever. It proves it's utter nonsense that we are souring relations with China and Russia due to our disapproval at their 'aggression'; we're doing so because we're dutifully falling behind the US' (futile) defense of its global hegemony. A half decent Government would read the writing on the wall and hedge our bets.
You cannot have education without money to fund it, nobody mentioned money per student. Barnett only looks good because it does not take into account Scotland's revenue. If done correctly we get much less than we pay in , but the money i siphoned off to fool plebs like you that you subsidise Scotland. Given England controls Scotland's budget , Scotland cannot ever have control of its education whilst that is the case. It has the responsibility for sure but not the power.
Even if we buy your debateable figures about how much Scotland deserves from the oil, London also gets less than it pays in - and a gap that's much,much larger than Scotland.
Kind of goes against your other point that the country is run for the benefit of London doesn't it?
London is not a country, fact is there is a democratic deficiency in Scotland which can only be resolved by independence, given unionists have not allowed an option for federalism. I agree you can change it to the London Elite , who continue to prosper , up 15% last yer , whilst foodbanks and poverty flourish among the working class.
So if you're a "country" with a net contribution to the exchequer you're getting screwed over, but if you're a "region" with a much higher net contribution you're not getting screwed over?
Salmond agreed to the terms of not having a middle option. He thought it would increase the odds of an independence vote.
And it's the London "elite" who are the ones paying in the most to subsidise Wales, Northern Ireland etc.
Guido has a take on the Labour candidate in Clacton. Given the Survation poll, probably best for Ed to leave him in place and watch the Con/UKIP fight.
You cannot have education without money to fund it, nobody mentioned money per student. Barnett only looks good because it does not take into account Scotland's revenue. If done correctly we get much less than we pay in , but the money i siphoned off to fool plebs like you that you subsidise Scotland. Given England controls Scotland's budget , Scotland cannot ever have control of its education whilst that is the case. It has the responsibility for sure but not the power.
Even if we buy your debateable figures about how much Scotland deserves from the oil, London also gets less than it pays in - and a gap that's much,much larger than Scotland.
Kind of goes against your other point that the country is run for the benefit of London doesn't it?
London is not a country, fact is there is a democratic deficiency in Scotland which can only be resolved by independence, given unionists have not allowed an option for federalism. I agree you can change it to the London Elite , who continue to prosper , up 15% last yer , whilst foodbanks and poverty flourish among the working class.
London is another country to we poor East Midlands yokels, as SeanT has pointed out in the past.
You cannot have education without money to fund it, nobody mentioned money per student. Barnett only looks good because it does not take into account Scotland's revenue. If done correctly we get much less than we pay in , but the money i siphoned off to fool plebs like you that you subsidise Scotland. Given England controls Scotland's budget , Scotland cannot ever have control of its education whilst that is the case. It has the responsibility for sure but not the power.
Even if we buy your debateable figures about how much Scotland deserves from the oil, London also gets less than it pays in - and a gap that's much,much larger than Scotland.
Kind of goes against your other point that the country is run for the benefit of London doesn't it?
London is not a country, fact is there is a democratic deficiency in Scotland which can only be resolved by independence, given unionists have not allowed an option for federalism. I agree you can change it to the London Elite , who continue to prosper , up 15% last yer , whilst foodbanks and poverty flourish among the working class.
So if you're a "country" with a net contribution to the exchequer you're getting screwed over, but if you're a "region" with a much higher net contribution you're not getting screwed over?
Salmond agreed to the terms of not having a middle option. He thought it would increase the odds of an independence vote.
And it's the London "elite" who are the ones paying in the most to subsidise Wales, Northern Ireland etc.
Er, is your memory not perhaps letting you down? Mr Salmond recommended the third option of (proper) devomax, but Mr Cameron threw it out. I well remember how it was much praised as a victory for Mr C at the time.
Care to step back from your impotent rage to tell us how 'saving' the Harrier GR9 fleet would have improved military effectiveness? In addition, how the previous out-of-service date of 2018 for the GR9's would have been much use on the Queen Elizabeth, which is only due in initial service in 2017?
Whilst you are at it, you may want to look at the differences between the GR9's and the Sea Harriers, and see why the former are not particularly suited for naval warfare, especially Falklands-style operations.
Perhaps it would be simpler if you could explain to me how the carrier works better with *no* planes than *some* planes.
That's the point: the Invincible-class carriers had virtually no planes on them pre-2010 because the RAF were playing with them. It was so bad that we were having to rely on the Spanish Navy and the USMC to keep the carriers' crews even basically trained in handling planes.
So at best the carriers would have been set up to handle planes that would be in service for a couple of years at most - unless you wanted to expensively try to keep the Harriers in the air for longer. Worse, the Harrier GR9's were splendidly unsuitable for the role on carriers, and are well known pilot-killers, expensive to maintain and fly. This would only have got worse as the airframes got older. (1)
Is that simple enough for you?
Blame Hoon and the farcical Joint Force Harrier for the plane mess, and the Labour government for their chronic mishandling of the entire QE class carriers ...
Care to step back from your impotent rage to tell us how 'saving' the Harrier GR9 fleet would have improved military effectiveness? In addition, how the previous out-of-service date of 2018 for the GR9's would have been much use on the Queen Elizabeth, which is only due in initial service in 2017?
Whilst you are at it, you may want to look at the differences between the GR9's and the Sea Harriers, and see why the former are not particularly suited for naval warfare, especially Falklands-style operations.
Perhaps it would be simpler if you could explain to me how the carrier works better with *no* planes than *some* planes.
It's like saying because we don't have any racing cars we should just use go karts, they're better than nothing. It's that magnitude of capability loss.
Happy to go with your analogy, providing the Go-karts are at least better than standing still (not walking -that would suggest flying was possible with no planes).
MalcolmG Scotland has 7% of the UK population, but 9% of seats at Westminster, some democratic deficit!
I have never ever seen it at 7% , it is usually 8% or 9% and is in the middle. It has no advantage with seat numbers at Westminster and in fact has no influence whatsoever.
You cannot have education without money to fund it, nobody mentioned money per student. Barnett only looks good because it does not take into account Scotland's revenue. If done correctly we get much less than we pay in , but the money i siphoned off to fool plebs like you that you subsidise Scotland. Given England controls Scotland's budget , Scotland cannot ever have control of its education whilst that is the case. It has the responsibility for sure but not the power.
Even if we buy your debateable figures about how much Scotland deserves from the oil, London also gets less than it pays in - and a gap that's much,much larger than Scotland.
Kind of goes against your other point that the country is run for the benefit of London doesn't it?
London is not a country, fact is there is a democratic deficiency in Scotland which can only be resolved by independence, given unionists have not allowed an option for federalism. I agree you can change it to the London Elite , who continue to prosper , up 15% last yer , whilst foodbanks and poverty flourish among the working class.
So if you're a "country" with a net contribution to the exchequer you're getting screwed over, but if you're a "region" with a much higher net contribution you're not getting screwed over?
Salmond agreed to the terms of not having a middle option. He thought it would increase the odds of an independence vote.
And it's the London "elite" who are the ones paying in the most to subsidise Wales, Northern Ireland etc.
Er, is your memory not perhaps letting you down? Mr Salmond recommended the third option of (proper) devomax, but Mr Cameron threw it out. I well remember how it was much praised as a victory for Mr C at the time.
Carnyx, what do you expect from a diehard Tory unionist Londoner.
JohnN UKIP won 10% of the vote in this year's Euro elections in Scotland, if all of those voters vote No that could be key, I doubt any working class Glasgow Catholics are not already voting Yes, Glasgow sadly will probably largely split along Rangers, Celtic lines
It's a strange time indeed to be saying we should be copying the French economic model.
Not saying we should adopt their economic model. They simply declared Danone a strategic industry and that was that. That's not an economic model, it's sheer cheek. Which in some cases, yes I think we could do with copying.
Care to step back from your impotent rage to tell us how 'saving' the Harrier GR9 fleet would have improved military effectiveness? In addition, how the previous out-of-service date of 2018 for the GR9's would have been much use on the Queen Elizabeth, which is only due in initial service in 2017?
Whilst you are at it, you may want to look at the differences between the GR9's and the Sea Harriers, and see why the former are not particularly suited for naval warfare, especially Falklands-style operations.
Perhaps it would be simpler if you could explain to me how the carrier works better with *no* planes than *some* planes.
We are spending billions on planes for the carriers. Labour ordered carriers and sold the naval version of the plane. Labour has ordered the planes and designed the carriers so it cannot fly any other type. The planes have been delayed. The ground attack version of the plane does not have the radar necessary for the ability to act as a fighter. ie it has no radar to detect and lock missiles on to enemy fighters. The Harrier's range as a ground attack fighter is severely limited as soon as you put a weapon load on it and of course it is defenceless against other enemy fighters so could not operate in an environment where ground based friendly fighters could not protect it. So as you see putting GR Harriers on these ships would be worse than useless.
JohnN UKIP won 10% of the vote in this year's Euro elections in Scotland, if all of those voters vote No that could be key, I doubt any working class Glasgow Catholics are not already voting Yes, Glasgow sadly will probably largely split along Rangers, Celtic lines
No are relying on all their nasty partners to vote for them in a forlorn hope that allying themselves with any nasty group may save them. An unholy alliance indeed. Also despite the bampots , there are lots of Rangers supporters for YES also, they are not all bigots.
MalcolmG Scotland has 7% of the UK population, but 9% of seats at Westminster, some democratic deficit!
8.3% of UK population with 9% of commons seats actually. Of course you've neglected to mention the joke upper house where Scotland (using most measures) is notably under represented.
God bless the conservatives for standing up for real British values
YES we really are Better Together, they share their rickets, their foodbanks and poverty with us, if only they would share the money that the rich elite pocket.
MalcolmG Scotland has 7% of the UK population, but 9% of seats at Westminster, some democratic deficit!
8.3% of UK population with 9% of commons seats actually. Of course you've neglected to mention the joke upper house where Scotland (using most measures) is notably under represented.
Care to step back from your impotent rage to tell us how 'saving' the Harrier GR9 fleet would have improved military effectiveness? In addition, how the previous out-of-service date of 2018 for the GR9's would have been much use on the Queen Elizabeth, which is only due in initial service in 2017?
Whilst you are at it, you may want to look at the differences between the GR9's and the Sea Harriers, and see why the former are not particularly suited for naval warfare, especially Falklands-style operations.
Perhaps it would be simpler if you could explain to me how the carrier works better with *no* planes than *some* planes.
It's like saying because we don't have any racing cars we should just use go karts, they're better than nothing. It's that magnitude of capability loss.
Except, thanks to Hoon's lunacy, we were operating two-and-a-bit carriers for years with no planes on them. And by the time the QE comes on stream, those Harriers would have been very long in the tooth.
Setting up the QE for the few remaining GR9 airframes, which did not even have a radar, for just a couple of years would have cost countless millions.
CATOBAR or a variant thereof would have been better, but Brown and Blair's government lied for years about the carriers being designed for, but not with, catapults. It turned out that that oft-repeated requirement had been dropped early in the design process.
You can blame this government for many things, but scrapping the Harriers was a sound decision. And I say that with regret, because I loved that plane.
You cannot have education without money to fund it, nobody mentioned money per student. Barnett only looks good because it does not take into account Scotland's revenue. If done correctly we get much less than we pay in , but the money i siphoned off to fool plebs like you that you subsidise Scotland. Given England controls Scotland's budget , Scotland cannot ever have control of its education whilst that is the case. It has the responsibility for sure but not the power.
Even if we buy your debateable figures about how much Scotland deserves from the oil, London also gets less than it pays in - and a gap that's much,much larger than Scotland.
Kind of goes against your other point that the country is run for the benefit of London doesn't it?
London is not a country, fact is there is a democratic deficiency in Scotland which can only be resolved by independence, given unionists have not allowed an option for federalism. I agree you can change it to the London Elite , who continue to prosper , up 15% last yer , whilst foodbanks and poverty flourish among the working class.
So if you're a "country" with a net contribution to the exchequer you're getting screwed over, but if you're a "region" with a much higher net contribution you're not getting screwed over?
Salmond agreed to the terms of not having a middle option. He thought it would increase the odds of an independence vote.
And it's the London "elite" who are the ones paying in the most to subsidise Wales, Northern Ireland etc.
Er, is your memory not perhaps letting you down? Mr Salmond recommended the third option of (proper) devomax, but Mr Cameron threw it out. I well remember how it was much praised as a victory for Mr C at the time.
I said that Salmond agreed to the terms. Which he did. I don't believe him criticising it afterwards either. It worked for both sides.
You cannot have education without money to fund it, nobody mentioned money per student. Barnett only looks good because it does not take into account Scotland's revenue. If done correctly we get much less than we pay in , but the money i siphoned off to fool plebs like you that you subsidise Scotland. Given England controls Scotland's budget , Scotland cannot ever have control of its education whilst that is the case. It has the responsibility for sure but not the power.
Even if we buy your debateable figures about how much Scotland deserves from the oil, London also gets less than it pays in - and a gap that's much,much larger than Scotland.
Kind of goes against your other point that the country is run for the benefit of London doesn't it?
London is not a country, fact is there is a democratic deficiency in Scotland which can only be resolved by independence, given unionists have not allowed an option for federalism. I agree you can change it to the London Elite , who continue to prosper , up 15% last yer , whilst foodbanks and poverty flourish among the working class.
So if you're a "country" with a net contribution to the exchequer you're getting screwed over, but if you're a "region" with a much higher net contribution you're not getting screwed over?
Salmond agreed to the terms of not having a middle option. He thought it would increase the odds of an independence vote.
And it's the London "elite" who are the ones paying in the most to subsidise Wales, Northern Ireland etc.
Er, is your memory not perhaps letting you down? Mr Salmond recommended the third option of (proper) devomax, but Mr Cameron threw it out. I well remember how it was much praised as a victory for Mr C at the time.
Carnyx, what do you expect from a diehard Tory unionist Londoner.
I'm a Tory, now am I? I didn't realise. I must have confused myself with all my criticism of the Conservative party...
You cannot have education without money to fund it, nobody mentioned money per student. Barnett only looks good because it does not take into account Scotland's revenue. If done correctly we get much less than we pay in , but the money i siphoned off to fool plebs like you that you subsidise Scotland. Given England controls Scotland's budget , Scotland cannot ever have control of its education whilst that is the case. It has the responsibility for sure but not the power.
Even if we buy your debateable figures about how much Scotland deserves from the oil, London also gets less than it pays in - and a gap that's much,much larger than Scotland.
Kind of goes against your other point that the country is run for the benefit of London doesn't it?
London is not a country, fact is there is a democratic deficiency in Scotland which can only be resolved by independence, given unionists have not allowed an option for federalism. I agree you can change it to the London Elite , who continue to prosper , up 15% last yer , whilst foodbanks and poverty flourish among the working class.
So if you're a "country" with a net contribution to the exchequer you're getting screwed over, but if you're a "region" with a much higher net contribution you're not getting screwed over?
Salmond agreed to the terms of not having a middle option. He thought it would increase the odds of an independence vote.
And it's the London "elite" who are the ones paying in the most to subsidise Wales, Northern Ireland etc.
Er, is your memory not perhaps letting you down? Mr Salmond recommended the third option of (proper) devomax, but Mr Cameron threw it out. I well remember how it was much praised as a victory for Mr C at the time.
I said that Salmond agreed to the terms. Which he did. I don't believe him criticising it afterwards either. It worked for both sides.
You miss the point as usual. Previous poster opined that Cameron had agreed to fund more powers in Scotland when he had previously taken the more powers option off the table.
You can blame this government for many things, but scrapping the Harriers was a sound decision. And I say that with regret, because I loved that plane.
As of 2006, the Indian Navy was in the process of upgrading up to 15 Sea Harriers in collaboration with Israel by installing the Elta EL/M-2032 radar and the Rafael 'Derby' medium range air to air BVR missile.[82][83] This will enable the Sea Harrier to remain in Indian service until beyond 2012, and also see limited service off the new carriers it will acquire by that time frame. By 2009, crashes had reduced India's fleet to 12 (out of original 30).[84] Ultimately India plans to introduce larger aircraft carriers that can operate Russian MiG-29K carrier fighters from their flight decks to replace the Sea Harrier.[85][86]
The French mollycoddling of their "national champions" has led to a huge stifling of French productivity, as it did for the UK when we tried it in the 1970s.
MalcolmG/Carnyx Cameron's ancestry through his father is Scottish, but if Cameron had allowed 3 questions with devomax on the ballot, Salmond would have just used devomax as a springboard for independence. Scots need to decide now one way or another Yes or No, if it is Yes that is their decision, if it is no we can look at devomax, English votes for English laws, boundary changes etc but we need to know where the UK is going in the longer term
You cannot have education without money to fund it, nobody mentioned money per student. Barnett only looks good because it does not take into account Scotland's revenue. If done correctly we get much less than we pay in , but the money i siphoned off to fool plebs like you that you subsidise Scotland. Given England controls Scotland's budget , Scotland cannot ever have control of its education whilst that is the case. It has the responsibility for sure but not the power.
Even if we buy your debateable figures about how much Scotland deserves from the oil, London also gets less than it pays in - and a gap that's much,much larger than Scotland.
Kind of goes against your other point that the country is run for the benefit of London doesn't it?
London is not a country, fact is there is a democratic deficiency in Scotland which can only be resolved by independence, given unionists have not allowed an option for federalism. I agree you can change it to the London Elite , who continue to prosper , up 15% last yer , whilst foodbanks and poverty flourish among the working class.
So if you're a "country" with a net contribution to the exchequer you're getting screwed over, but if you're a "region" with a much higher net contribution you're not getting screwed over?
Salmond agreed to the terms of not having a middle option. He thought it would increase the odds of an independence vote.
And it's the London "elite" who are the ones paying in the most to subsidise Wales, Northern Ireland etc.
Er, is your memory not perhaps letting you down? Mr Salmond recommended the third option of (proper) devomax, but Mr Cameron threw it out. I well remember how it was much praised as a victory for Mr C at the time.
I said that Salmond agreed to the terms. Which he did. I don't believe him criticising it afterwards either. It worked for both sides.
You miss the point as usual. Previous poster opined that Cameron had agreed to fund more powers in Scotland when he had previously taken the more powers option off the table.
MalcolmG As is seen from the likes of Yes backer Brian Souter and the Yes mob baiting Murphy Yes are hardly sweetness and light either
At least in Scotland , Souter does not get kickbacks or knighthoods for his support. Unlike Westminster where they can buy anything they wish. Also I see you are promoting the freedom of speech as a bad thing, very democratic.
Care to step back from your impotent rage to tell us how 'saving' the Harrier GR9 fleet would have improved military effectiveness? In addition, how the previous out-of-service date of 2018 for the GR9's would have been much use on the Queen Elizabeth, which is only due in initial service in 2017?
Whilst you are at it, you may want to look at the differences between the GR9's and the Sea Harriers, and see why the former are not particularly suited for naval warfare, especially Falklands-style operations.
Perhaps it would be simpler if you could explain to me how the carrier works better with *no* planes than *some* planes.
It's like saying because we don't have any racing cars we should just use go karts, they're better than nothing. It's that magnitude of capability loss.
Happy to go with your analogy, providing the Go-karts are at least better than standing still (not walking -that would suggest flying was possible with no planes).
It's a stupid analogy, as you'd be flying planes unfit for air combat against much more capable planes. You'd be sending old, slow planes in blind against modern fighters.
Try racing your go-kart against BTCC cars and see how long you live.
(The USMC, the Spanish and Italian Navies were all sensible and ordered their Harrier-II's with radars)
MalcolmG Scotland has 7% of the UK population, but 9% of seats at Westminster, some democratic deficit!
8.3% of UK population with 9% of commons seats actually. Of course you've neglected to mention the joke upper house where Scotland (using most measures) is notably under represented.
TUD, he does not have the capacity to understand.
It's his own personal magical maths that converts 412k Scottish Tory voters into half a million.
But then again take a look at UKIP and what it promises - its not simply the EU anymore - what it has realised it can peddle is fear, fear of immigrants and not simply new people coming in but those well established here. It is only offering hate and dispute. And UKIP's best bet - is a seat where there are no immigrants no muslims no 'coloureds', just gullible old fashiond pensioners. People with no jobs to lose if we leave the EU, people who have no idea about what it is they are told they should be afraid of.
I wouldn't vote for them but TBF what you've described doesn't match Carswell's pitch, and in general I think they compare pretty well to parties in other countries occupying the same right-wing populist niche.
It may not match Carswell's pitch but he is a wierd law unto himself anyway - he soon threw localism out of the window when it threatened to bite him. Saying somebody compares well with the French National Front is not much of a compliment. And quite frankly when we actually listen to the remarks of all the various kipper MEPs and other candidates I am not sure you are correct anyway. The ones that do not get in the news are probably more adept at keeping their opinions to themselves.
You cannot have education without money to fund it, nobody mentioned money per student. Barnett only looks good because it does not take into account Scotland's revenue. If done correctly we get much less than we pay in , but the money i siphoned off to fool plebs like you that you subsidise Scotland. Given England controls Scotland's budget , Scotland cannot ever have control of its education whilst that is the case. It has the responsibility for sure but not the power.
Even if we buy your debateable figures about how much Scotland deserves from the oil, London also gets less than it pays in - and a gap that's much,much larger than Scotland.
Kind of goes against your other point that the country is run for the benefit of London doesn't it?
London is not a country, fact is there is a democratic deficiency in Scotland which can only be resolved by independence, given unionists have not allowed an option for federalism. I agree you can change it to the London Elite , who continue to prosper , up 15% last yer , whilst foodbanks and poverty flourish among the working class.
So if you're a "country" with a net contribution to the exchequer you're getting screwed over, but if you're a "region" with a much higher net contribution you're not getting screwed over?
Salmond agreed to the terms of not having a middle option. He thought it would increase the odds of an independence vote.
And it's the London "elite" who are the ones paying in the most to subsidise Wales, Northern Ireland etc.
Er, is your memory not perhaps letting you down? Mr Salmond recommended the third option of (proper) devomax, but Mr Cameron threw it out. I well remember how it was much praised as a victory for Mr C at the time.
Carnyx, what do you expect from a diehard Tory unionist Londoner.
I'm a Tory, now am I? I didn't realise. I must have confused myself with all my criticism of the Conservative party...
You can blame this government for many things, but scrapping the Harriers was a sound decision. And I say that with regret, because I loved that plane.
As of 2006, the Indian Navy was in the process of upgrading up to 15 Sea Harriers in collaboration with Israel by installing the Elta EL/M-2032 radar and the Rafael 'Derby' medium range air to air BVR missile.[82][83] This will enable the Sea Harrier to remain in Indian service until beyond 2012, and also see limited service off the new carriers it will acquire by that time frame. By 2009, crashes had reduced India's fleet to 12 (out of original 30).[84] Ultimately India plans to introduce larger aircraft carriers that can operate Russian MiG-29K carrier fighters from their flight decks to replace the Sea Harrier.[85][86]
Yep, I know. The Sea Harriers were worse and older platforms than the Harrier-II's, but they had a brilliant-for-the-time radar in the form of the Blue Vixen which made it at least capable in air combat.
There are two thought-provoking articles for a Sunday for anyone interested in UK politics, especially about the political 'centre-right'/'right'. I happen to agree with elements of each article. I think change to how our politics works is coming and is needed, yet I am concerned about UKIP and a number of its policies (when you can determine them).
I am a Conservative voter and party member. I don't pretend the party is perfect, but I recognise that government, especially in coalition can be difficult. I am also instinctively wary of massive change in one swoop and of promised grand visions for the future. With UKIP I just don't know what they actually stand for, although one can tell they stand against many things. Nevertheless the Conservative party should think long and hard about how (a) it can reform itself to facilitate greater variation of views within its membership whilst maintaining some core common values and a coherent, deliverable policy agenda and (b) look at how we can reform our political system in a measured way which does not throw out many valuable traditions we have.
MalcolmG/Carnyx Cameron's ancestry through his father is Scottish, but if Cameron had allowed 3 questions with devomax on the ballot, Salmond would have just used devomax as a springboard for independence. Scots need to decide now one way or another Yes or No, if it is Yes that is their decision, if it is no we can look at devomax, English votes for English laws, boundary changes etc but we need to know where the UK is going in the longer term
I thought it was obvious where it is going, if not this time then independence will happen later. The union is done for sooner or later.
JohnN UKIP won 10% of the vote in this year's Euro elections in Scotland, if all of those voters vote No that could be key, I doubt any working class Glasgow Catholics are not already voting Yes, Glasgow sadly will probably largely split along Rangers, Celtic lines
No are relying on all their nasty partners to vote for them in a forlorn hope that allying themselves with any nasty group may save them. An unholy alliance indeed. Also despite the bampots , there are lots of Rangers supporters for YES also, they are not all bigots.
Reports coming in on Twitter of the treasurer of a No partner group attacking a pregnant Yes campaigner by kicking her in the stomach when canvassing in the street in Glasgow - unconfirmed as yet but as he is named and said to have been arrested and charged, one would hope the reports are accurate for the authors' sakes.
Not clear whether he was canvassing as a Better Together person but he is reported to have been using their bumf at the time.
Will be interesting to see how the media cover that compared with Mr Murphy's egg. But very depressing.
JohnN UKIP won 10% of the vote in this year's Euro elections in Scotland, if all of those voters vote No that could be key, I doubt any working class Glasgow Catholics are not already voting Yes, Glasgow sadly will probably largely split along Rangers, Celtic lines
No are relying on all their nasty partners to vote for them in a forlorn hope that allying themselves with any nasty group may save them. An unholy alliance indeed. Also despite the bampots , there are lots of Rangers supporters for YES also, they are not all bigots.
Reports coming in on Twitter of the treasurer of a No partner group attacking a pregnant Yes campaigner by kicking her in the stomach when canvassing in the street in Glasgow - unconfirmed as yet but as he is named and said to have been arrested and charged, one would hope the reports are accurate for the authors' sakes.
Not clear whether he was canvassing as a Better Together person but he is reported to have been using their bumf at the time.
Will be interesting to see how the media cover that compared with Mr Murphy's egg. But very depressing.
It will be ignored mainly , you will not see it in London rags. BT will claim the BNP are not their partners despite them being joined at the hip and that the fake egg throwing by Jim's minder is much more serious.. They have chosen nasty bedfellows to promote their nasty campaign for sure.
Luckyguy - your answer doesn't make sense. You say France protected Danone, so Britain should protect British businesses. But one does not follow the other. Again I give you the example of Jaguar Land Rover. Or how about BAA? Now in foreign hands, investment in Heathrow has increased hugely and it is finally becoming a world class facility. You decry the strength of corporate Britain, but how do you think it compares to France? I submit that Britain has benefited hugely from having open markets that allow capital to be allocated efficiently and transactions to be done without political interference. Your "non-socialist" response is greater state power!
And citing Saudi Arabia rather proves my point - this is incredibly complex. Our foreign policy is often ham fisted, but unless you are about to unveil a very sophisticated alternative, you only have one option left: isolation. Or "carry on, dictator".
I'm not saying it's desirable, I am saying if other countries, including our biggest competitors do it, we must.
So if our international competitors make mistakes, we should make the same mistakes? To what end, exactly?
Of course, having lots of your business in foreign hands can flatter to deceive:
Alex Salmond’s claim that Scotland is one of the richest countries in the developed world has been challenged in a study by Glasgow University academics which finds it is a middle-ranking economy with high levels of foreign ownership.
The domination of non-Scottish firms, particularly in key industries such as North Sea oil, financial services and banking, whisky and salmon, means a significant amount of Scotland’s wealth is exported to the rest of the UK and overseas.
Luckyguy - your answer doesn't make sense. You say France protected Danone, so Britain should protect British businesses. But one does not follow the other. Again I give you the example of Jaguar Land Rover. Or how about BAA? Now in foreign hands, investment in Heathrow has increased hugely and it is finally becoming a world class facility. You decry the strength of corporate Britain, but how do you think it compares to France? I submit that Britain has benefited hugely from having open markets that allow capital to be allocated efficiently and transactions to be done without political interference. Your "non-socialist" response is greater state power!
And citing Saudi Arabia rather proves my point - this is incredibly complex. Our foreign policy is often ham fisted, but unless you are about to unveil a very sophisticated alternative, you only have one option left: isolation. Or "carry on, dictator".
I'm not saying it's desirable, I am saying if other countries, including our biggest competitors do it, we must.
So if our international competitors make mistakes, we should make the same mistakes? To what end, exactly?
Of course, having lots of your business in foreign hands can flatter to deceive:
Alex Salmond’s claim that Scotland is one of the richest countries in the developed world has been challenged in a study by Glasgow University academics which finds it is a middle-ranking economy with high levels of foreign ownership.
The domination of non-Scottish firms, particularly in key industries such as North Sea oil, financial services and banking, whisky and salmon, means a significant amount of Scotland’s wealth is exported to the rest of the UK and overseas.
I thought we were Better Together, you admitting that unionists have been lying up till now and are just claryfying that we are indeed being shafted and not benefitted. I do not see you commenting much on your BT chums knocking pregnant women unconscious just because they were YES supporter. Lost your voice perhaps.
It's a strange time indeed to be saying we should be copying the French economic model.
Not saying we should adopt their economic model. They simply declared Danone a strategic industry and that was that. That's not an economic model, it's sheer cheek. Which in some cases, yes I think we could do with copying.
So you would prevent the owners of Cadbury selling to whoever they wished?
And stopping the capital being recycled into people's pensions and productive new enterprises?
God bless the conservatives for standing up for real British values
Rickets is caused by a lack of vitamin D or a lack of calcium. The former the body makes from sunlight so is free. The latter can be obtained in sufficient quantities from milk, a pint of milk costs about 50p. The idea that rickets is caused by any action taken by this government is a nonsense.
P.S. Rickets is also more common in people of a darker skin in northern climates because they need more exposure to sunlight to create the same amount of vitamin D. With a larger darker skinned population the incidence of rickets can be expected to increase.
P.P.S. A healthy diet is actually cheaper than an unhealthy diet, but does require some skill in preparing and cooking fresh food.
Amazes me that there isn't more panic from the Left, on here, about the prospect of a Scottish YES.
The odds on YES are now back down to 3/1
Yet from the sweet silence and blithe complacency of NPXMP, etc etc, you'd think the odds were 50/1.
A Scottish YES will (apart from taking away 40 Labour MPs and making the next GE entirely unpredictable) permanently shift rUK in a rightwing direction: more eurosceptic, more hostile to immigration, keener to get the deficit down, desirous of lower spending, as the more social democratic Scots depart.
YES is calamitous for the Left. Yet they shrug their shoulders as if it can't happen - in three weeks time. Most odd.
Amazes me that there isn't more panic from the Left, on here, about the prospect of a Scottish YES.
The odds on YES are now back down to 3/1
Yet from the sweet silence and blithe complacency of NPXMP, etc etc, you'd think the odds were 50/1.
A Scottish YES will (apart from taking away 40 Labour MPs and making the next GE entirely unpredictable) permanently shift rUK in a rightwing direction: more eurosceptic, more hostile to immigration, keener to get the deficit down, desirous of lower spending, as the more social democratic Scots depart.
YES is calamitous for the Left. Yet they shrug their shoulders as if it can't happen - in three weeks time. Most odd.
But HYUFD will now reassure us that Ed doesn't need Scotland to win next year!
MalcolmG As is seen from the likes of Yes backer Brian Souter and the Yes mob baiting Murphy Yes are hardly sweetness and light either
At least in Scotland , Souter does not get kickbacks or knighthoods for his support. Unlike Westminster where they can buy anything they wish. Also I see you are promoting the freedom of speech as a bad thing, very democratic.
Luckyguy - your answer doesn't make sense. You say France protected Danone, so Britain should protect British businesses. But one does not follow the other. Again I give you the example of Jaguar Land Rover. Or how about BAA? Now in foreign hands, investment in Heathrow has increased hugely and it is finally becoming a world class facility. You decry the strength of corporate Britain, but how do you think it compares to France? I submit that Britain has benefited hugely from having open markets that allow capital to be allocated efficiently and transactions to be done without political interference. Your "non-socialist" response is greater state power!
And citing Saudi Arabia rather proves my point - this is incredibly complex. Our foreign policy is often ham fisted, but unless you are about to unveil a very sophisticated alternative, you only have one option left: isolation. Or "carry on, dictator".
I'm not saying it's desirable, I am saying if other countries, including our biggest competitors do it, we must.
So if our international competitors make mistakes, we should make the same mistakes? To what end, exactly?
Of course, having lots of your business in foreign hands can flatter to deceive:
Alex Salmond’s claim that Scotland is one of the richest countries in the developed world has been challenged in a study by Glasgow University academics which finds it is a middle-ranking economy with high levels of foreign ownership.
The domination of non-Scottish firms, particularly in key industries such as North Sea oil, financial services and banking, whisky and salmon, means a significant amount of Scotland’s wealth is exported to the rest of the UK and overseas.
MalcolmG I have yet to see Salmond say he will take Souter's knighthood away, and as has been reported by BT Salmond is quite capable of threatening company executives with loss of government business if they come out for No
I was unaware Scotland had knighthoods, I thought it was unionists in Westminster that gave them out. Is this like Scottish banks that are under UK regulation. You are not the sharpest tool in the box are you, but thanks for proving my point.
He is so bad and evil that unionists in London decided to give him a gong, can you not make your minds up , did it wit Fred as well. What a bunch of dumplings.
MalcolmG/Carnyx Cameron's ancestry through his father is Scottish, but if Cameron had allowed 3 questions with devomax on the ballot, Salmond would have just used devomax as a springboard for independence. Scots need to decide now one way or another Yes or No, if it is Yes that is their decision, if it is no we can look at devomax, English votes for English laws, boundary changes etc but we need to know where the UK is going in the longer term
I clearly recall that polling was split more or less evenly to give a third each to full indy, devomax, and existing parliament, even then - and of course the status quo would be always scoring more heavily than other options in early voting because the others were, then, unfamiliar. The balance would have shifted somewhat away from status quo as people got to know the other two options.
My reaction then and still now is that devomax would have won hands down and played indy into the scrub off the fairway for years and even decades so long as foreign policy didn't get too dodgy. That is what I thought at the time and that is why I was astounded that Cameron turned it down flat "because Mr Salmond wanted it", if he was serious about resolving indyref. (It is not so different from his own position on the EU, I suppose.)
We were discussing this a few days back. Opinion differend on whether it could be got through the English, but it might well be more accurate to say the Tory backbenchers didn't want it. Perhaps one way tot look at it is that if Mr C [edited for clarity] was not willing to exert his leadership then the UK is kaput in its present form (which is not too far off what you are saying).
Care to step back from your impotent rage to tell us how 'saving' the Harrier GR9 fleet would have improved military effectiveness? In addition, how the previous out-of-service date of 2018 for the GR9's would have been much use on the Queen Elizabeth, which is only due in initial service in 2017?
Whilst you are at it, you may want to look at the differences between the GR9's and the Sea Harriers, and see why the former are not particularly suited for naval warfare, especially Falklands-style operations.
Perhaps it would be simpler if you could explain to me how the carrier works better with *no* planes than *some* planes.
It's like saying because we don't have any racing cars we should just use go karts, they're better than nothing. It's that magnitude of capability loss.
Except, thanks to Hoon's lunacy, we were operating two-and-a-bit carriers for years with no planes on them. And by the time the QE comes on stream, those Harriers would have been very long in the tooth.
Setting up the QE for the few remaining GR9 airframes, which did not even have a radar, for just a couple of years would have cost countless millions.
CATOBAR or a variant thereof would have been better, but Brown and Blair's government lied for years about the carriers being designed for, but not with, catapults. It turned out that that oft-repeated requirement had been dropped early in the design process.
You can blame this government for many things, but scrapping the Harriers was a sound decision. And I say that with regret, because I loved that plane.
Spot on as ever, Mr Jessop. Mind you the present government is making a mistake as big as Hoon's with its plans for the F35. We are going to have Joint Force Lightning II. A completely stupid decision, which will have operational as well as cash consequences, made because nobody in government has the balls to tell the Crabs where to get off.
MalcolmG As is seen from the likes of Yes backer Brian Souter and the Yes mob baiting Murphy Yes are hardly sweetness and light either
At least in Scotland , Souter does not get kickbacks or knighthoods for his support. Unlike Westminster where they can buy anything they wish. Also I see you are promoting the freedom of speech as a bad thing, very democratic.
JohnN UKIP won 10% of the vote in this year's Euro elections in Scotland, if all of those voters vote No that could be key, I doubt any working class Glasgow Catholics are not already voting Yes, Glasgow sadly will probably largely split along Rangers, Celtic lines
No are relying on all their nasty partners to vote for them in a forlorn hope that allying themselves with any nasty group may save them. An unholy alliance indeed. Also despite the bampots , there are lots of Rangers supporters for YES also, they are not all bigots.
Reports coming in on Twitter of the treasurer of a No partner group attacking a pregnant Yes campaigner by kicking her in the stomach when canvassing in the street in Glasgow - unconfirmed as yet but as he is named and said to have been arrested and charged, one would hope the reports are accurate for the authors' sakes.
Not clear whether he was canvassing as a Better Together person but he is reported to have been using their bumf at the time.
Will be interesting to see how the media cover that compared with Mr Murphy's egg. But very depressing.
Is the BNP an "official" partner group? (I don't know, but I'd be surprised). Or does "partner group" just mean that they also oppose Scottish independence?
"BNP thug in violent attack on innocent person" isn't really a surprise and it's a but of a smear to try and associate that sort of behaviour with Better Together as a whole.
Flawed or not, hard to replicate elsewhere or not, this poll is a 'Wow!'.
I said I thought Carswell would walk it in Clacton and he clearly will.
As Flocker so ably outlines, people are getting pretty tired of the stale bien-pensant westminster bubble of tweedledem/tweedledave/tweedleband politics. For all its immaturity UKIP appears to be a party that actually, shock horror, listens to what people worry about and, double shock horror, appears willing to do something about those concerns. How very dare they!
Personally I'm horrified this will mean we get Redward in No.10 - but a big part of me is cheering the kippers on. Go Douglas!
I agree 100% with the last paragraph.
I also agree that UKIP APPEAR willing to do something about things - as we have found out from the other parties talk really is very cheap.
I would also say its not just politics and politicians.
I have had extensive dealings with local government which were absolutely infuriating (and at times shocking) and although we prevailed in the end parents without deep pockets are just being brushed off.
Talking to others our situation was not that unusual.
Then we have Rotherham etal.
Its not just politics that seems broke, its the entire system.
"It is time that decent Conservatives and those that believe in social democracy stand up and fight those parasites who are infecting our party".Tory modernisers refuse to lay down.
I was unaware Scotland had knighthoods, I thought it was unionists in Westminster that gave them out. You are not the sharpest tool in the box are you, but thanks for proving my point.
First Minister Alex Salmond congratulated those honoured in the birthday list.
You cannot have education without money to fund it, nobody mentioned money per student. Barnett only looks good because it does not take into account Scotland's revenue. If done correctly we get much less than we pay in , but the money i siphoned off to fool plebs like you that you subsidise Scotland. Given England controls Scotland's budget , Scotland cannot ever have control of its education whilst that is the case. It has the responsibility for sure but not the power.
Even if we buy your debateable figures about how much Scotland deserves from the oil, London also gets less than it pays in - and a gap that's much,much larger than Scotland.
Kind of goes against your other point that the country is run for the benefit of London doesn't it?
London is not a country, fact is there is a democratic deficiency in Scotland which can only be resolved by independence, given unionists have not allowed an option for federalism. I agree you can change it to the London Elite , who continue to prosper , up 15% last yer , whilst foodbanks and poverty flourish among the working class.
So if you're a "country" with a net contribution to the exchequer you're getting screwed over, but if you're a "region" with a much higher net contribution you're not getting screwed over?
Salmond agreed to the terms of not having a middle option. He thought it would increase the odds of an independence vote.
And it's the London "elite" who are the ones paying in the most to subsidise Wales, Northern Ireland etc.
Er, is your memory not perhaps letting you down? Mr Salmond recommended the third option of (proper) devomax, but Mr Cameron threw it out. I well remember how it was much praised as a victory for Mr C at the time.
Carnyx, what do you expect from a diehard Tory unionist Londoner.
I'm a Tory, now am I? I didn't realise. I must have confused myself with all my criticism of the Conservative party...
OK, Kipper leaning Tory.
Tory leaning Kipper would probably be more accurate.
I was unaware Scotland had knighthoods, I thought it was unionists in Westminster that gave them out. You are not the sharpest tool in the box are you, but thanks for proving my point.
First Minister Alex Salmond congratulated those honoured in the birthday list.
Who is not the sharpest tool in the box?
As I understand, the system is now different in Scotland. The SG don't make recommendations: it's a civil service committee which does.
Sunil No, he doesn't. Labour leads in the Midlands, the north, Wales and London so he would still win an election even without Scotland. Scotland may have more Labour seats than Tory, but that does not mean that Labour cannot win without it, as indeed Blair and Attlee did in all their elections and Wilson in half his
Luckyguy - your answer doesn't make sense. You say France protected Danone, so Britain should protect British businesses. But one does not follow the other. Again I give you the example of Jaguar Land Rover. Or how about BAA? Now in foreign hands, investment in Heathrow has increased hugely and it is finally becoming a world class facility. You decry the strength of corporate Britain, but how do you think it compares to France? I submit that Britain has benefited hugely from having open markets that allow capital to be allocated efficiently and transactions to be done without political interference. Your "non-socialist" response is greater state power!
And citing Saudi Arabia rather proves my point - this is incredibly complex. Our foreign policy is often ham fisted, but unless you are about to unveil a very sophisticated alternative, you only have one option left: isolation. Or "carry on, dictator".
I'm not saying it's desirable, I am saying if other countries, including our biggest competitors do it, we must.
So if our international competitors make mistakes, we should make the same mistakes? To what end, exactly?
Of course, having lots of your business in foreign hands can flatter to deceive:
Alex Salmond’s claim that Scotland is one of the richest countries in the developed world has been challenged in a study by Glasgow University academics which finds it is a middle-ranking economy with high levels of foreign ownership.
The domination of non-Scottish firms, particularly in key industries such as North Sea oil, financial services and banking, whisky and salmon, means a significant amount of Scotland’s wealth is exported to the rest of the UK and overseas.
I do not see you commenting much on your BT chums knocking pregnant women unconscious just because they were YES supporter. Lost your voice perhaps.
Link to reliable source? If true it's disgraceful - was it an attack coordinated on Twitter too?
It is reported in the Herald hard copy but cannot see online. Man was arrested yesterday and his name has been on twitter. As ever msm will not report much as it involves NO campaign. Guy is reputed to be BNP treasurer and was promoting NO and reputedly giving out/using BT material. As ever they will claim that the BNP are not in their team but it has usual hollow ring to it.
Of course they have. Both are very difficult and steps in the right direction are all that we can legitimately hope for.
Let's take the example of immigration. The biggest problem the government have is that the success of their economic policies has turned the UK into employment Central creating more jobs than the entire EZ and acting as a magnet to the unemployed and ambitious of the EU.
The second problem is that we accept that the government has no right to say who UK citizens can and can't marry and that we have a right to bring our spouse here to live with us. Given the size of our existing immigrant communities this creates an enormous pressure for immigration which can only be mitigated by authoritarian challenges and diminution of basic rights.
The third problem is that education is a major export industry for us bringing many foreign students here. They then get involved in UK life and with UK citizens and want to stay.
Cameron can be criticised for promising to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands because unless we had an economic disaster of Brownian proportions it was never going to happen but when did we last elect a politician whose response to every problem is that it is all terribly difficult?
So you accept that Cameron's promise on immigration was either a deliberate lie to trick people into voting for him or was made with total ignorance of the actual immigration issue.
I imagine it was made with no expectation that the UK economy would be growing quite so remarkably in relation to the rest of the EU. The rise in job creation has been the most spectacular element of this Coalition Govt's management of the economy and I suspect has wrong-footed just about everybody.
Not least those on the Left predicting 5 million unemployed....
LOL, all those zero hour no pay jobs are wonderful for the plebs, how clever they are to have such a boom. Thick rich Tory parasites hail it as superb.
Add one million people being fed by foodbanks and a 71% rise in malnutrition this year.An economic miracle for the bankers sharing £40 billion in bonuses but permafrost wages for the many..The Tories call it success. The Tories are even useless at bigot-baiting with the immigration figures coming back to bite them too. Never under-estimate the stupidity of the Tory party.
Comments
There you go Kippers, what are you whinging about? Behold the miracle of running water!
Yes, there's generally a big difference between what a Party offers in Opposition and what it is constrained into doing in Government.
Nevertheless I wouldn't want to live in a country run by the FN. Not sure I would even want to visit it.
Kind of goes against your other point that the country is run for the benefit of London doesn't it?
Nothing I mentioned was even vaguely un-manifesto-able.
Flowing taps? That's what we should be grateful for is it. For goodness sake.
1) The voters would probably vote to stay, and since Lisbon the EU is institutionally fortified against one member state dicking around so it could survive an FN-led member state.
2) The EU without France would be a different kind of thing, but it would still be a thing. In any case everyone would presumably just leave the French to sort their shit out and wait until they asked to be let in again.
Agree, if the FN are elected it is the end of the EU, though not necessarily because France chooses/votes to leave.
Why would MLP put it to the electorate? Or UKIP for that matter, it's on the tin as they say.
And citing Saudi Arabia rather proves my point - this is incredibly complex. Our foreign policy is often ham fisted, but unless you are about to unveil a very sophisticated alternative, you only have one option left: isolation. Or "carry on, dictator".
My Foundation works quite closely with the Arts Council. They are making some very radical changes to their approach reflecting a steady reducing in grant-in-aid (£350m in 2014/15 vs £449m in 2010/11. What they are doing is much more strategic in nature, and I think has a great deal of value. On the quango point, they have consolidated a number of other quangos into ACE, so although the one people have heard of still remains a number of others have disappeared
Why let facts get in the way Charles? ;-)
I'm not sure if they'd stick with the referendum policy - I guess they would in that they'd be at least vaguely aware of the practical problems involved in leaving, and leaving on the back of a referendum win rather than unilaterally would reduce the political damage.
Lol
More room for flowing taps.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/rotherham-style-child-abuse-in-scotland-probed-1-3526201
But apologies if I've maligned British jihadis too unfairly for you.
http://order-order.com/2014/08/31/read-guidos-column-in-the-sun-on-sunday-online-43/
And then again simply walking out is the last thing which will inspire international conficdence and inward investment. Even now companies will be reconsidering their investments.
But then again take a look at UKIP and what it promises - its not simply the EU anymore - what it has realised it can peddle is fear, fear of immigrants and not simply new people coming in but those well established here. It is only offering hate and dispute. And UKIP's best bet - is a seat where there are no immigrants no muslims no 'coloureds', just gullible old fashiond pensioners. People with no jobs to lose if we leave the EU, people who have no idea about what it is they are told they should be afraid of.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/30/us-ukraine-crisis-russia-funerals-idUSKBN0GU0B020140830
Russian government beats him unconscious in response.
So did Carswell jump because he saw the writing on the wall?
If he wanted to remain an MP after 2015, maybe his best chance was as a UKIP.
In which case, no wonder Roger Lord is so annoyed.
It's like saying because we don't have any racing cars we should just use go karts, they're better than nothing. It's that magnitude of capability loss.
Well done! Keep it up, folks,
Luckyguy said
Simplistic, no. Basic to any vaguely competent Government, yes. As an example perhaps you can find another country with a national debt of the same order as ours which continues to operate such a bloated quangocracy? Cameron's Government itself promised a 'bonfire of the quangos' that has never happened.
Nothing I mentioned was even vaguely un-manifesto-able.
Flowing taps? That's what we should be grateful for is it. For goodness sake.
Flockers replies
Britain's quango state is the legacy of Major's reforms, which sought to reduce the role and size of Central government by outsourcing functions to semi-independent specialist and apolitical bodies. Other countries adopt different models, but even if they eschew quangos the money still generally needs to be spent and the functions still generally must be performed. Any comparison needs to look at overall state expenditure, not at quangos alone. That's not to defend Britain's system as unimprovable; clearly some quangos spend more than they should, don't offer value for money or are of dubious benefit. The government was right to focus on this, and doubtless more can be done, but there is no use pretending that it is as straight forward as shutting them all down.
I didn't say anything you said was un-manifesto-able. It would fit perfectly into the manifesto of a populist, insurgent, naive party with no experience of government and no competence to govern.
Nice of you to take "flowing taps" out of context, but again you inadvertently demonstrate your ignorance. Keeping a country supplied with water and sewerage, in an era of rising populations and urbanisation, climate change, intensive farming and industry and vastly increased domestic usage, is a complex business that involves balancing private business and public needs, and interaction with City and rural planners. And lots of money. In your lifetime you will see governments around the world get this wrong, and people die in large numbers.
Jaguar, Landrover, and Mini etc. are British heritage brands, whose image benefits from a made in Britain tag. That's why production has been kept in the UK, and that's fantastic. Most products are not the same, and it doesn't take long for production facilities to close once the company has been taken over.
My citing of Saudi Arabia doesn't prove your point whatsoever. It proves it's utter nonsense that we are souring relations with China and Russia due to our disapproval at their 'aggression'; we're doing so because we're dutifully falling behind the US' (futile) defense of its global hegemony. A half decent Government would read the writing on the wall and hedge our bets.
Salmond agreed to the terms of not having a middle option. He thought it would increase the odds of an independence vote.
And it's the London "elite" who are the ones paying in the most to subsidise Wales, Northern Ireland etc.
It's a strange time indeed to be saying we should be copying the French economic model.
That's the point: the Invincible-class carriers had virtually no planes on them pre-2010 because the RAF were playing with them. It was so bad that we were having to rely on the Spanish Navy and the USMC to keep the carriers' crews even basically trained in handling planes.
So at best the carriers would have been set up to handle planes that would be in service for a couple of years at most - unless you wanted to expensively try to keep the Harriers in the air for longer. Worse, the Harrier GR9's were splendidly unsuitable for the role on carriers, and are well known pilot-killers, expensive to maintain and fly. This would only have got worse as the airframes got older. (1)
Is that simple enough for you?
Blame Hoon and the farcical Joint Force Harrier for the plane mess, and the Labour government for their chronic mishandling of the entire QE class carriers ...
http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/6722
Happy to go with your analogy, providing the Go-karts are at least better than standing still (not walking -that would suggest flying was possible with no planes).
"Rickets returns as poor families find healthy diets unaffordable"
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/30/child-poverty-link-malnutrition-rickets
God bless the conservatives for standing up for real British values
We are spending billions on planes for the carriers. Labour ordered carriers and sold the naval version of the plane. Labour has ordered the planes and designed the carriers so it cannot fly any other type. The planes have been delayed.
The ground attack version of the plane does not have the radar necessary for the ability to act as a fighter. ie it has no radar to detect and lock missiles on to enemy fighters. The Harrier's range as a ground attack fighter is severely limited as soon as you put a weapon load on it and of course it is defenceless against other enemy fighters so could not operate in an environment where ground based friendly fighters could not protect it.
So as you see putting GR Harriers on these ships would be worse than useless.
Also despite the bampots , there are lots of Rangers supporters for YES also, they are not all bigots.
Carswell - Cameron never gives any detail to his promises. That's because there isn't any.
Still his intellectual self confidence will see him through.
That and Labour voters that would vote for a donkey.
Except, thanks to Hoon's lunacy, we were operating two-and-a-bit carriers for years with no planes on them. And by the time the QE comes on stream, those Harriers would have been very long in the tooth.
Setting up the QE for the few remaining GR9 airframes, which did not even have a radar, for just a couple of years would have cost countless millions.
CATOBAR or a variant thereof would have been better, but Brown and Blair's government lied for years about the carriers being designed for, but not with, catapults. It turned out that that oft-repeated requirement had been dropped early in the design process.
You can blame this government for many things, but scrapping the Harriers was a sound decision. And I say that with regret, because I loved that plane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_Sea_Harrier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Viraat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikramaditya
The French mollycoddling of their "national champions" has led to a huge stifling of French productivity, as it did for the UK when we tried it in the 1970s.
It's a stupid analogy, as you'd be flying planes unfit for air combat against much more capable planes. You'd be sending old, slow planes in blind against modern fighters.
Try racing your go-kart against BTCC cars and see how long you live.
(The USMC, the Spanish and Italian Navies were all sensible and ordered their Harrier-II's with radars)
Saying somebody compares well with the French National Front is not much of a compliment. And quite frankly when we actually listen to the remarks of all the various kipper MEPs and other candidates I am not sure you are correct anyway. The ones that do not get in the news are probably more adept at keeping their opinions to themselves.
But Hoon scrapped them.
There are two thought-provoking articles for a Sunday for anyone interested in UK politics, especially about the political 'centre-right'/'right'. I happen to agree with elements of each article. I think change to how our politics works is coming and is needed, yet I am concerned about UKIP and a number of its policies (when you can determine them).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11064331/Carswell-has-just-made-a-Labour-victory-more-likely.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11063876/Douglas-Carswell-can-see-where-politics-is-going-hes-a-true-moderniser.html
I am a Conservative voter and party member. I don't pretend the party is perfect, but I recognise that government, especially in coalition can be difficult. I am also instinctively wary of massive change in one swoop and of promised grand visions for the future. With UKIP I just don't know what they actually stand for, although one can tell they stand against many things. Nevertheless the Conservative party should think long and hard about how (a) it can reform itself to facilitate greater variation of views within its membership whilst maintaining some core common values and a coherent, deliverable policy agenda and (b) look at how we can reform our political system in a measured way which does not throw out many valuable traditions we have.
Not clear whether he was canvassing as a Better Together person but he is reported to have been using their bumf at the time.
Will be interesting to see how the media cover that compared with Mr Murphy's egg. But very depressing.
They have chosen nasty bedfellows to promote their nasty campaign for sure.
Of course, having lots of your business in foreign hands can flatter to deceive:
Alex Salmond’s claim that Scotland is one of the richest countries in the developed world has been challenged in a study by Glasgow University academics which finds it is a middle-ranking economy with high levels of foreign ownership.
The domination of non-Scottish firms, particularly in key industries such as North Sea oil, financial services and banking, whisky and salmon, means a significant amount of Scotland’s wealth is exported to the rest of the UK and overseas.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/29/scotland-wealth-alex-salmond-study
I do not see you commenting much on your BT chums knocking pregnant women unconscious just because they were YES supporter. Lost your voice perhaps.
And stopping the capital being recycled into people's pensions and productive new enterprises?
That one?
Or another Brian Souter?
Brian Souter knighted in Queen's birthday honours
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13725892
P.S. Rickets is also more common in people of a darker skin in northern climates because they need more exposure to sunlight to create the same amount of vitamin D. With a larger darker skinned population the incidence of rickets can be expected to increase.
P.P.S. A healthy diet is actually cheaper than an unhealthy diet, but does require some skill in preparing and cooking fresh food.
You are not the sharpest tool in the box are you, but thanks for proving my point.
He is so bad and evil that unionists in London decided to give him a gong, can you not make your minds up , did it wit Fred as well. What a bunch of dumplings.
My reaction then and still now is that devomax would have won hands down and played indy into the scrub off the fairway for years and even decades so long as foreign policy didn't get too dodgy. That is what I thought at the time and that is why I was astounded that Cameron turned it down flat "because Mr Salmond wanted it", if he was serious about resolving indyref. (It is not so different from his own position on the EU, I suppose.)
We were discussing this a few days back. Opinion differend on whether it could be got through the English, but it might well be more accurate to say the Tory backbenchers didn't want it. Perhaps one way tot look at it is that if Mr C [edited for clarity] was not willing to exert his leadership then the UK is kaput in its present form (which is not too far off what you are saying).
Setting up the QE for the few remaining GR9 airframes, which did not even have a radar, for just a couple of years would have cost countless millions.
CATOBAR or a variant thereof would have been better, but Brown and Blair's government lied for years about the carriers being designed for, but not with, catapults. It turned out that that oft-repeated requirement had been dropped early in the design process.
You can blame this government for many things, but scrapping the Harriers was a sound decision. And I say that with regret, because I loved that plane.
Spot on as ever, Mr Jessop. Mind you the present government is making a mistake as big as Hoon's with its plans for the F35. We are going to have Joint Force Lightning II. A completely stupid decision, which will have operational as well as cash consequences, made because nobody in government has the balls to tell the Crabs where to get off.
"BNP thug in violent attack on innocent person" isn't really a surprise and it's a but of a smear to try and associate that sort of behaviour with Better Together as a whole.
I also agree that UKIP APPEAR willing to do something about things - as we have found out from the other parties talk really is very cheap.
I would also say its not just politics and politicians.
I have had extensive dealings with local government which were absolutely infuriating (and at times shocking) and although we prevailed in the end parents without deep pockets are just being brushed off.
Talking to others our situation was not that unusual.
Then we have Rotherham etal.
Its not just politics that seems broke, its the entire system.
http://jerryhayes.co.uk/
Who is not the sharpest tool in the box?
Of course they have. Both are very difficult and steps in the right direction are all that we can legitimately hope for.
Let's take the example of immigration. The biggest problem the government have is that the success of their economic policies has turned the UK into employment Central creating more jobs than the entire EZ and acting as a magnet to the unemployed and ambitious of the EU.
The second problem is that we accept that the government has no right to say who UK citizens can and can't marry and that we have a right to bring our spouse here to live with us. Given the size of our existing immigrant communities this creates an enormous pressure for immigration which can only be mitigated by authoritarian challenges and diminution of basic rights.
The third problem is that education is a major export industry for us bringing many foreign students here. They then get involved in UK life and with UK citizens and want to stay.
Cameron can be criticised for promising to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands because unless we had an economic disaster of Brownian proportions it was never going to happen but when did we last elect a politician whose response to every problem is that it is all terribly difficult?
So you accept that Cameron's promise on immigration was either a deliberate lie to trick people into voting for him or was made with total ignorance of the actual immigration issue.
I imagine it was made with no expectation that the UK economy would be growing quite so remarkably in relation to the rest of the EU. The rise in job creation has been the most spectacular element of this Coalition Govt's management of the economy and I suspect has wrong-footed just about everybody.
Not least those on the Left predicting 5 million unemployed....
LOL, all those zero hour no pay jobs are wonderful for the plebs, how clever they are to have such a boom. Thick rich Tory parasites hail it as superb.
Add one million people being fed by foodbanks and a 71% rise in malnutrition this year.An economic miracle for the bankers sharing £40 billion in bonuses but permafrost wages for the many..The Tories call it success.
The Tories are even useless at bigot-baiting with the immigration figures coming back to bite them too.
Never under-estimate the stupidity of the Tory party.