One of my Aunties/Uncles lived right next to Heathrow along time ago. I can just about remember that aircraft were so low landing/taking off, that I could see the passengers and pilots. The contstant noise was awful, so I can totally understand why people living there don't want expansion. But the fact is that even if you started to build another new airport in Kent, it would not open until 2030 at the earliest. Meanwhile Heathrow is running at 100% capacity, with safety issues of being limited to two working runways.
I think the best option is a third runway at Heathow, another runway at Gatwick and expansion of other regional airports.
Heathrow's fifth terminal cost £4 billion, and took nineteen years from conception to opening, and seven years from planning being granted to opening. (1)
The cost of a third runway will be much more as the disruption will be so much greater, and the timescales the same or longer, so I would be surprised if it was open before 2030. The extra capacity gained would also be relatively little.
This leads to the question as to whether planning processes should be altered for national-critical infrastructure projects.
And I don't believe Heathrow when they say the new runway will be privately financed, especially with regards to all the ancillary work needed: the cost of the public inquiry, the access roads, M25 updating etcetera.
This was the second suggestion for such an airport. Thir first was some 40 years ago, and based North of the Thames mouth, around Foulness Island. The Foulness scheme fell partly admittedly because of conservation issues but also because of the enormous disruption to established communities which would have resulted.
Big problem, of course, is what are we going to do with airports when the oil runs out, or at least gets a lot less available than it is now? Would not an offshore island airport end up being a total white elephant not too liong after it was built?
Actually, there have been near-constant run of proposed schemes for a Thames airport in various places; Foulness was just the one that got nearest acceptance (I think, and am probably wrong, that they build Stansted instead).
The big problem is not the one you mention. It is how we cope with the ever-increasing air traffic (both passenger and freight) without harming the country's economy by not being able to cope with demand. I cannot see how Heathrow can do that in the long term. It is too hemmed in.
Your oil-running-out argument is ridiculous. If oil prices rise so much that flight becomes unecomonic, the world economy would be affected to such a degree that a white elephant airport would be the least of our worries.
I read somewhere that the closeness of the Quebec vote, or perhaps more accurately the fact that in the days before hand it looked like the separatists would win, was ironically one reason why it is now dead as an issue for the foreseeable future. The prospect that it might actually happen spooked the markets dramatically and gave the voters a proper look into the abyss that they almost jumped into.
If Scotland vote yes and there is a dramatic reaction with capital flight, and financial institutions making panicked announcements that they will be immediately relocating then things could get very interesting very quickly. I suppose in some ways that might be what the SNP are banking on, with the panicked response from Govt to backtrack on currency union (although i still don't know if the SNP REALLY want a currency union - it was perhaps a mistake from the Govt to completely rule it out, rather than state the terms upon which it would be theoretically acceptable (whilst making those terms obviously unacceptable to the SNP).
S**t, still haven't got around to opening that HSBC bank account...
In all seriousness I would move any money south of the border now. We're breaking up 300 year old country with one part, Scotland, promising to renege on debt and no chance of a formal currency union unless it's on terms which Scotland cannot accept (England deciding fiscal and taxation matters for the Scots etc).
The whole thing is very worrying, but i still think a bit of perspective is needed. Scotland is a country of 5 million people. The rest of the UK is 55 million +. In fact this is a reality which some of the vocal Yes side, including some on here no names, have failed to grasp and have grossly overestimated the strength of an Independent Scotland's negotiating position and subsequent existence. Because Oil and Whisky are of fundamental importance to Scotland's future they seem to think that it is also fundamental to the UK as a whole and we will struggle without it. The debate about whether Scotland is a net contributor or not to the UK is very important to an Independent Scotland, it's pretty much roundings to the rest of the UK. If Scottish financial institutions announce on September 19th that they are relocating to the UK will it have that much long term impact?
Given we will all still be using the pound and working hand in glove to ensure it does not go down the toilet , your fears are unfounded. First agreement/announcement will be that the pound will be shared for xx years so that the markets are not spooked. Both sides will need to do it and quick.
Contrary to many on here, I expect Labour to be resurgent in Scotland very rapidly as the warnings the No side gave prior to the vote largely turn out to be correct.
Anecdote alert - long time tribal Glasgow Labour friend (loathes SNP and all their works, reckons first 10-15 years will be tough) has decided 'Yes'
That is extremely common. That is why I have a little smile every time a BritNat writes "the nationalists" or "YESNP" when referring to the Yes campaign. It shows that they haven't got the faintest clue about the types of people backing Yes, or, more importantly, why.
The No campaign are running blind.
Our best guesstimates are that approx 40% of SLab voters favour Yes over No. Some feel strongly about it (about half) and will definitely vote Yes. But it is the remaining 20% of weak Yes SLab voters that are absolutely critical to the result. Alistair Darling standing up on national tv to defend the Lib-Con attacks on the NHS is not helping Johanna Lamont's effort to keep that key 20% on board.
The YESSNP slogan is a barb that is working which is why Stuart is so dismissive of it. Salmond is like marmite you either like or hate him. There is a fight for the traditional Glaswegian working class protestant male vote. Rangers play at home 2 days before the vote. 50,000 key voters singing I was born under the Union Jack and No Surrender. Expect Govan to be rocking.
You got your sash ironed and flute polished all ready then. Not all Rangers supporters are as thick as you , all the intelligent ones are for YES. The knuckledraggers are a lost cause but are a minority.
Polls suggest otherwise. The capable and productive are strongly No, while the derelict and unproductive favour Yes.
I've been lucky enough to spend some time in Montreal and Toronto recently and the Quebec experience certainly makes an interesting comparison with Scotland.
My understanding is that although the Yes side lost, the vote was so close that it got much of what it wanted anyway. Quebec became generally far more Francophone. This has probably been most evident in the jobs market, and the increased predominance of the French language. There was, I am told, also a flight of capital and business, notably to Toronto which has become a much more prosperous city as a consequence.
Montreal struck me as pretty down at heel. Locals suggested it wasn't like that before the vote and blamed 'French maladministration' and the unchecked growth of local Mafias as much as the capital flight.
The person to ask about this is our house cartoonist, Marf. She was brought up in Montreal, and her father, Mordecai Richler, wrote the definitive book on Separatism at the time - Oh Canada, Oh Quebec: Requiem For A Divided Country.
Sadly, Mordecai is no longer with us to give his views but a thread piece by Marf on the subject would be timely and informative. Perhaps Mike could ask her?
Des anyone know, or have a good estimate, of the number of Scottish electors who aren't Scottish? If the "No" majority is smaller than that number the fireworks will surely fly - and I'm not talking celebration, either...
At the 2001 census approx 7% of people resident in Scotland were "Other white British" (ie. white English, white Welsh, white Ulster). That figure is probably higher now. Guesstimate: 9% (?)
I realise that those stats are old and do not answer your exact question, but they are the best I could come up with with 3 minutes googling.
So, let us assume that approx 10% of the Scottish population "aren't Scottish" (your words note; this is a very problematic and controversial definition by the way).
Let us also assume that No wins with a majority of less than 10 points (eg. last night's YouGov).
Well, it doesn't take a genius to work out who would have "won" it for PM David Cameron. And it won't have been The Sun.
Horses for courses.
Since 20% of all people born in Scotland live elsewhere in the UK and can't vote, nobody can really say what Scots think. The Indyref is a survey of people resident in Scotland.
So, now the independence referendum is reduced to the status of "a survey" is it? Ho ho. Look who's losing.
Just 16 days to save the Yoonyun.
No it's a vote Stuart, but the picking around to isolate groups of voters is just the usual SNP crap.
And as for losing YES hasn't been ahead once in the campaign, it shows you chaps can't do maths.
Picking around to isolate groups of voters is just the usual Unionist crap. It was Innocent-Abroad who raised the issue, not me.
The polls are plain wrong. They still are. Even that YG last night. The weightings are totally bonkers. And that is before you even start to address their heavily contaminated database of (ahem) "respondents".
If that's so, why are you 'green' on all outcomes?
Err... it really is a bit depressing that one still needs to explain such things to a PB regular. Mike's blog has been in business for 10 years but the vast majority of real punters left long ago because very few around here have the faintest scoobie about betting.
Here's a hint: Yes was recently being laid, at respectable volumes, at prices between 7 and 8.
This was the second suggestion for such an airport. Thir first was some 40 years ago, and based North of the Thames mouth, around Foulness Island. The Foulness scheme fell partly admittedly because of conservation issues but also because of the enormous disruption to established communities which would have resulted.
Big problem, of course, is what are we going to do with airports when the oil runs out, or at least gets a lot less available than it is now? Would not an offshore island airport end up being a total white elephant not too liong after it was built?
Actually, there have been near-constant run of proposed schemes for a Thames airport in various places; Foulness was just the one that got nearest acceptance (I think, and am probably wrong, that they build Stansted instead).
The big problem is not the one you mention. It is how we cope with the ever-increasing air traffic (both passenger and freight) without harming the country's economy by not being able to cope with demand. I cannot see how Heathrow can do that in the long term. It is too hemmed in.
Your oil-running-out argument is ridiculous. If oil prices rise so much that flight becomes unecomonic, the world economy would be affected to such a degree that a white elephant airport would be the least of our worries.
Again, it is an argument for stagnation.
Presumably you believe in something called "sustainable growth" (or some such). Can you point to any evidence of it? Would you agree that there must come a point when Planet Earth can no longer sustain an increase in the human population? If so, why do you think it is so far in the future that not even the youngest of us needs to worry about it?
Chief Constable David Crompton said "A fully independent and impartial investigation is required to ensure that people have confidence that organisations or any individuals will be investigated fairly, rigorously and with complete impartiality.
Does this mean it's a criminal investigation rather than another inquiry into what happened?
Des anyone know, or have a good estimate, of the number of Scottish electors who aren't Scottish? If the "No" majority is smaller than that number the fireworks will surely fly - and I'm not talking celebration, either...
At the 2001 census approx 7% of people resident in Scotland were "Other white British" (ie. white English, white Welsh, white Ulster). That figure is probably higher now. Guesstimate: 9% (?)
Since 20% of all people born in Scotland live elsewhere in the UK and can't vote, nobody can really say what Scots think. The Indyref is a survey of people resident in Scotland.
So, now the independence referendum is reduced to the status of "a survey" is it? Ho ho. Look who's losing.
Just 16 days to save the Yoonyun.
And as for losing YES hasn't been ahead once in the campaign, it shows you chaps can't do maths.
contaminated database of (ahem) "respondents".
Personally I think NO will still win.
However they may also be too busy saving themselves to be worrying about being bitter
I don't suppose we know much about the demographics of postal voters. But maybe likely to be older and therefore more 'No' given some of the polling?
It is hard to say , I do not think the polling is really on the ball, they are stabbing in the dark, weighting is not great and they are not reaching everybody. All I can say is I see no momentum or real presence from BT , on the other hand YES is everywhere motivated with loads and loads of people working their socks off. For me it is a bit like autumn , at first it comes on subtly but you feel it coming. I hope it is YES but for sure NO will be very very lucky to hold out. Given the lead they had their complacency has been breathtaking, they have relied on sad old losers from Labour and all men. It is unbelievable how poor they are.
In all seriousness I would move any money south of the border now. We're breaking up 300 year old country with one part, Scotland, promising to renege on debt and no chance of a formal currency union unless it's on terms which Scotland cannot accept (England deciding fiscal and taxation matters for the Scots etc).
The whole thing is very worrying, but i still think a bit of perspective is needed. Scotland is a country of 5 million people. The rest of the UK is 55 million +. In fact this is a reality which some of the vocal Yes side, including some on here no names, have failed to grasp and have grossly overestimated the strength of an Independent Scotland's negotiating position and subsequent existence. Because Oil and Whisky are of fundamental importance to Scotland's future they seem to think that it is also fundamental to the UK as a whole and we will struggle without it. The debate about whether Scotland is a net contributor or not to the UK is very important to an Independent Scotland, it's pretty much roundings to the rest of the UK. If Scottish financial institutions announce on September 19th that they are relocating to the UK will it have that much long term impact?
Given we will all still be using the pound and working hand in glove to ensure it does not go down the toilet , your fears are unfounded. First agreement/announcement will be that the pound will be shared for xx years so that the markets are not spooked. Both sides will need to do it and quick.
Not sure this makes sense. Even on Alex Salmond's timetable the pound will be 'shared' for 18 months. Extending that by a few years won't make much difference if it is clear that it is a temporary arrangement. What comes after? And if it's temporary arrangement then the markets will try to break it apart anyway.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest ARSE 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" Projections. (Change from 19th August Projection) :
Con 307 (-7) .. Lab 277 (+4) .. LibDem 32 .. SNP 8 .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 3 (+2) .. Respect 1 (+1) .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Conservatives 19 seats short of a majority Labour 49 seats short of a majority ......................................................................................
"JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will shape the General Election result :
Bury North - TCTC Pudsey - TCTC Broxtowe - Likely Lab Gain Warwickshire North - Likely Lab Gain Cambridge - Likely LibDem Hold Ipswich - TCTC Watford - TCTC Croydon Central - Likely Con Hold Enfield - TCTC Cornwall North - TCTC Great Yarmouth - Con Hold Vale of Glamorgan - Con Hold Ochil and South Perthshire - Likely Lab Hold
Changes From 19th August - Bury North moves from Likely Con Hold to TCTC
TCTC - Too Close To Call - Less than 500 votes Likely Hold/Gain - 500 - 2500 votes Gain/Hold - Over 2500 votes .......................................................................................
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
@JackW To KW, I have traded insults with Jack many times, but whatever the reason for his absence, wish him all the best from me. Ignore us at anytime, we can tend toward unthinking comments that might sound strange to others.
Latest ARSE for the 2015 general election and JackW Dozen projections will be posted here at 9am.
Poor old Jack his mission in Edinburgh is not going to well, the bottom is falling out of his ARSE
KW posting for JackW
I'm sorry but I'm not aware what you're talking about?
Jack your pathetic kidding on you are not actually there is incredible. Not going to well up in Edinburgh is it.
KW for JackW.
Malcolm I don't know you and there's no need to be rude to me. Jack is not in Edinburgh and only briefly visited there a few weeks ago.
I don't know you and I fail to see how you think I am being rude. Just pointing out that he was in Edinburgh on business , things are not going well on his NO campaign and if you are not him , pass on my best wishes for the continued failure of his mission , he has only a few more weeks to suffer and we will find the ARSE'S do not have it.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest ARSE 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" Projections. (Change from 19th August Projection) :
Con 307 (-7) .. Lab 277 (+4) .. LibDem 32 .. SNP 8 .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 3 (+2) .. Respect 1 (+1) .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Conservatives 19 seats short of a majority Labour 49 seats short of a majority ......................................................................................
"JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will shape the General Election result :
Bury North - TCTC Pudsey - TCTC Broxtowe - Likely Lab Gain Warwickshire North - Likely Lab Gain Cambridge - Likely LibDem Hold Ipswich - TCTC Watford - TCTC Croydon Central - Likely Con Hold Enfield - TCTC Cornwall North - TCTC Great Yarmouth - Con Hold Vale of Glamorgan - Con Hold Ochil and South Perthshire - Likely Lab Hold
Changes From 19th August - Bury North moves from Likely Con Hold to TCTC
TCTC - Too Close To Call - Less than 500 votes Likely Hold/Gain - 500 - 2500 votes Gain/Hold - Over 2500 votes .......................................................................................
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
In all seriousness I would move any money south of the border now. We're breaking up 300 year old country with one part, Scotland, promising to renege on debt and no chance of a formal currency union unless it's on terms which Scotland cannot accept (England deciding fiscal and taxation matters for the Scots etc).
The whole thing is very worrying, but i still think a bit of perspective is needed. Scotland is a country of 5 million people. The rest of the UK is 55 million +. In fact this is a reality which some of the vocal Yes side, including some on here no names, have failed to grasp and have grossly overestimated the strength of an Independent Scotland's negotiating position and subsequent existence. Because Oil and Whisky are of fundamental importance to Scotland's future they seem to think that it is also fundamental to the UK as a whole and we will struggle without it. The debate about whether Scotland is a net contributor or not to the UK is very important to an Independent Scotland, it's pretty much roundings to the rest of the UK. If Scottish financial institutions announce on September 19th that they are relocating to the UK will it have that much long term impact?
Given we will all still be using the pound and working hand in glove to ensure it does not go down the toilet , your fears are unfounded. First agreement/announcement will be that the pound will be shared for xx years so that the markets are not spooked. Both sides will need to do it and quick.
Not sure this makes sense. Even on Alex Salmond's timetable the pound will be 'shared' for 18 months. Extending that by a few years won't make much difference if it is clear that it is a temporary arrangement. What comes after? And if it's temporary arrangement then the markets will try to break it apart anyway.
Alex, we will see , who knows what they will cobble together. However it will not be what the frothers on here predict. They will want to save the pound on both sides and all kidology and voters concerns will not come into it. George/Dave will do a Brown/Darling and save the world.
@JackW To KW, I have traded insults with Jack many times, but whatever the reason for his absence, wish him all the best from me. Ignore us at anytime, we can tend toward unthinking comments that might sound strange to others.
And the idea we could have a "temporary currency union" is particularly absurd: it would be a recipe for volatility as investors wait for sterling to break up. Again - look at the eurozone for a lesson, the mere idea that Greece might leave the euro was enough to cause panic.
If Scotland votes for Independence, and assuming the date of Independence is per Salmond's timetable for May 2016, then I'm certain that Scotland will still be using the Pound in June 2016, but that a date will have been set for Scotland to cease doing so.
There will be a transition period. It is no big deal.
This was the second suggestion for such an airport. Thir first was some 40 years ago, and based North of the Thames mouth, around Foulness Island. The Foulness scheme fell partly admittedly because of conservation issues but also because of the enormous disruption to established communities which would have resulted.
Big problem, of course, is what are we going to do with airports when the oil runs out, or at least gets a lot less available than it is now? Would not an offshore island airport end up being a total white elephant not too liong after it was built?
Actually, there have been near-constant run of proposed schemes for a Thames airport in various places; Foulness was just the one that got nearest acceptance (I think, and am probably wrong, that they build Stansted instead).
The big problem is not the one you mention. It is how we cope with the ever-increasing air traffic (both passenger and freight) without harming the country's economy by not being able to cope with demand. I cannot see how Heathrow can do that in the long term. It is too hemmed in.
Your oil-running-out argument is ridiculous. If oil prices rise so much that flight becomes unecomonic, the world economy would be affected to such a degree that a white elephant airport would be the least of our worries.
Again, it is an argument for stagnation.
Having lived in the area for a long time I don’t recall anything like a "near-constant run of proposed schemes”. Certainly not ones which got any serious backing. The nearest to sensible was Manston. Stansted was a going concern as a civilian airport several years before Foulness (or Maplin as it was otherwise known) was thought of. I agree, though, that there was more development there after the Foulness/Maplin project was abandoned.
The recommendation in the mid 60’s was for another inland airport. Buckinghamshire, I think.
It is quite possible to think of adequate surface transport being possible without oil, whereas AFAIK it is unlikely that significant air transport will be.
Jo Swinson is being tipped as the next Scottish Secretary when Alistair Carmichael get sacked later this month.
Shadsy doesn't rate her chances of holding on to her seat. He has just lengthened her price again. That 33/1 SNP is an absolute sitter, but PP will not allow me to put any more on.
Best prices - East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson MP, Lib Dem, Maj = 2,184)
Lab 8/15 (PP) LD 13/8 (Lad) SNP 33/1 (PP) UKIP 100/1 Con 100/1
Ed's chances of winning a majority must be much diminished by a YES. Surely Scots will vote en masse for the Nats as "their team" to do the negotiating at Westminster, and to maximise their power in London as the divorce is lawyered.
Labour will likely lose many or most of their Scottish seats in 2015, post-YES.
More imponderable is how the English electorate react. I predict quite a few will switch Tory, as the Tories are seen as the English party, best equipped to get a good deal for England.
Hmm. Betting opportunities here?
Moreover, following a YES vote, a clever move by the Tories would be to introduce a bill making it impossible for Scots MPs to vote on English laws in Westminster, with immediate effect.
The only way Labour could successfully oppose this would be by getting all their MPs - including their Scots MPs - to vote it down, and hope the Lib Dems also rebelled. Would Labour risk that? It would look very bad: MPs of a country that has just voted for independence insisting that they still have the right to make laws for the English in England, from whom they have just sued for immediate divorce.
It would be electorally suicidal for Miliband. So a good wheeze for the Tories. I reckon Miliband would let the the bill pass.
Calamitous as a YES vote would be for the economy, business, confidence, small children, all across the UK, it does offer some fascinating unpredictables.
Labour would have won in 1997, 2001 and 2005 even without Scotland, and also in one of the 1974 elections and 1966 under Wilson, and 1945 and 1950 under Atlee. Those that would have changed were 1964 and maybe 1974. http://wingsoverscotland.com/why-labour-doesnt-need-scotland/
What would surely make a larger difference is Scottish MPs no longer being in Cabinet or Prime Minister. Could Sir Alec Douglas Home have become Prime Minister, for instance? Gordon Brown was clearly Scottish. Tony Blair was born and educated in Scotland. Even David Cameron is part-Scot.
In the event of a Yes vote, I would expect both Scottish Government and rUK party leaders to make immediate announcements designed to manage the risk inherent in the independence process. Amongst these would be a five year period for independence to happen and a ten year currency union (or until Scotland joins the EU and adopts the Euro) whichever is the sooner... It serves nobody's interest for a fractious negotiation to ensue and, once he has won the vote Salmon will recognise this...
There won't be a formal currency union unless Scotland agrees to let London unilaterally decide Scotland's borrowing levels, tax rates, all fiscal policies, etc. How on earth could any "indy" Scotland agree to that? They would be less indy than they are now. But no rUK government could agree to a formal currency union - and backstopping Scottish banks, and guaranteeing Scottish debt WITHOUT such assurances.
Plus the voters down south hate the idea of a currency union - they saw what happened in the euro, so any party that tried it in London would lose millions of votes.
And the idea we could have a "temporary currency union" is particularly absurd: it would be a recipe for volatility as investors wait for sterling to break up. Again - look at the eurozone for a lesson, the mere idea that Greece might leave the euro was enough to cause panic.
There's no way round these nasty facts. A YES vote means chaos and higher interest rates and all the rest. It just does.
And, finally, Salmond would not wait five years for independence. That's daft.
Apart from that, excellent post.
Well, of course there will be those who adopt headless chicken mode ... And indeed there would be chaos if your view prevails that it's better to force change to happen overnight rather than over a period of time that allows new arrangements to be worked out and put in place... Allowing a currency union to last 310 years rather than 300 is hardly comparable to Greece as any calm analysis would show...
Rangers play at home 2 days before the vote. 50,000 key voters singing I was born under the Union Jack and No Surrender. Expect Govan to be rocking.
will they really get 50000 for a league cup evening KO? impressive if so.
The rangers fans that I know (mostly educated, to be fair, rather than proletarian) are far from unanimous on independence, songs notwithstanding.
They struggled to get 30K last Saturday , most sensible fans are realising that they are constantly being fleeced by conmen and staying away, Hamilton will be one of the not so bright ones that will keep handing them his cash till the bitter end.
Average gate last year was 43,000 in division 1 and a league cup tie against Inverness is a better game to watch than normal. All the Rangers fans I know are well educated but that does not change their deep down belief in the union. It is their history and why Rangers gets 40,000+ supporters and Hamilton 2,000+ each week, despite Hamilton being in a higher league and a better team. Voting for the SNP to annoy the complacent Labour is one thing but breaking up the union is something completely different. You cannot be a true Rangers fan and a Yes voter.
I see many recent arrivals to Scotland thinking about voting Yes to try and fit in. It is sad. Our country is split down the middle and the fighting will not stop for a long time. Polls will be very hard to read as more and more people on both sides are keeping their heads down.
@SeanT No Sean, the "left" hates those who have a selfish and uncaring attitude to anyone but themselves. England or the union is not the problem, for most people in Scotland it neo-capitalism. (even amongst the "natural Tories" in Scotland, it is hard to find your level of insanity)
In case this hasn't already been answered, according to the 2011 Census (table: LC2103SC) the over 16s resident population of Scotland were born in:
Scotland 81.5% England 9.6% Northern Ireland 0.8% Republic of Ireland 0.5% Wales 0.4% Rest of Europe 3.0% Africa 1.0% Middle East and Asia 2.2% The Americas and Caribbean 0.7% Oceania and Other: 0.3%
So quite a lot weren't born in Scotland. Of course, Mr Salmond made sure people born in Scotland and living in England weren't allowed to vote.
Your oil-running-out argument is ridiculous. If oil prices rise so much that flight becomes unecomonic, the world economy would be affected to such a degree that a white elephant airport would be the least of our worries.
In planning a new airport for a ~40 year timeframe one thing we should consider is how future-proof it might be.
Would it be suitable for airships, spacecraft, ramjets, etc?
I would imagine that air transport would be the last sector to be priced out of using oil, after heating, road and sea, and one could probably already manufacture aviation fuel using renewable energy, though this would currently not be cost-competitive.
Too much fog in the Thames estuary I would have thought. Damn silly place to put an airport, though it may be that all the alternatives are even worse.
In the event of a Yes vote, I would expect both Scottish Government and rUK party leaders to make immediate announcements designed to manage the risk inherent in the independence process. Amongst these would be a five year period for independence to happen and a ten year currency union (or until Scotland joins the EU and adopts the Euro) whichever is the sooner... It serves nobody's interest for a fractious negotiation to ensue and, once he has won the vote Salmon will recognise this...
There won't be a formal currency union unless Scotland agrees to let London unilaterally decide Scotland's borrowing levels, tax rates, all fiscal policies, etc. How on earth could any "indy" Scotland agree to that? They would be less indy than they are now. But no rUK government could agree to a formal currency union - and backstopping Scottish banks, and guaranteeing Scottish debt WITHOUT such assurances.
Plus the voters down south hate the idea of a currency union - they saw what happened in the euro, so any party that tried it in London would lose millions of votes.
And the idea we could have a "temporary currency union" is particularly absurd: it would be a recipe for volatility as investors wait for sterling to break up. Again - look at the eurozone for a lesson, the mere idea that Greece might leave the euro was enough to cause panic.
There's no way round these nasty facts. A YES vote means chaos and higher interest rates and all the rest. It just does.
And, finally, Salmond would not wait five years for independence. That's daft.
Apart from that, excellent post.
Well, of course there will be those who adopt headless chicken mode ... And indeed there would be chaos if your view prevails that it's better to force change to happen overnight rather than over a period of time that allows new arrangements to be worked out and put in place... Allowing a currency union to last 310 years rather than 300 is hardly comparable to Greece as any calm analysis would show...
Nice to see some sense talked rather than the frothers running about shouting "we are doomed". Commonsense will prevail.
Latest ARSE for the 2015 general election and JackW Dozen projections will be posted here at 9am.
Poor old Jack his mission in Edinburgh is not going to well, the bottom is falling out of his ARSE
KW posting for JackW
I'm sorry but I'm not aware what you're talking about?
Jack your pathetic kidding on you are not actually there is incredible. Not going to well up in Edinburgh is it.
KW for JackW.
Malcolm I don't know you and there's no need to be rude to me. Jack is not in Edinburgh and only briefly visited there a few weeks ago.
I don't know you and I fail to see how you think I am being rude. Just pointing out that he was in Edinburgh on business , things are not going well on his NO campaign and if you are not him , pass on my best wishes for the continued failure of his mission , he has only a few more weeks to suffer and we will find the ARSE'S do not have it.
KW for JackW.
In the small number of posts for JackW over the past few weeks I've made it clear to Pb that they are posted by me and not Jack but have been undertaken for him on his Pb account.
This was the second suggestion for such an airport. Thir first was some 40 years ago, and based North of the Thames mouth, around Foulness Island. The Foulness scheme fell partly admittedly because of conservation issues but also because of the enormous disruption to established communities which would have resulted.
Big problem, of course, is what are we going to do with airports when the oil runs out, or at least gets a lot less available than it is now? Would not an offshore island airport end up being a total white elephant not too liong after it was built?
Actually, there have been near-constant run of proposed schemes for a Thames airport in various places; Foulness was just the one that got nearest acceptance (I think, and am probably wrong, that they build Stansted instead).
The big problem is not the one you mention. It is how we cope with the ever-increasing air traffic (both passenger and freight) without harming the country's economy by not being able to cope with demand. I cannot see how Heathrow can do that in the long term. It is too hemmed in.
Your oil-running-out argument is ridiculous. If oil prices rise so much that flight becomes unecomonic, the world economy would be affected to such a degree that a white elephant airport would be the least of our worries.
Again, it is an argument for stagnation.
Presumably you believe in something called "sustainable growth" (or some such). Can you point to any evidence of it? Would you agree that there must come a point when Planet Earth can no longer sustain an increase in the human population? If so, why do you think it is so far in the future that not even the youngest of us needs to worry about it?
Western lifestyle is unsustainable.
You may be right that western lifestyle is unsustainable. If so, it is up to you and other people who agree that the rest of us voters should side with them and agree to a massive change in our lifestyles, wealth, and even a decrease in our life expectancy.
Good luck with that.
Personally, I'm more optimistic. Science and technology will help us keep ahead of the curve. But yes, it is a gamble, but one that has worked so far.
Rangers play at home 2 days before the vote. 50,000 key voters singing I was born under the Union Jack and No Surrender. Expect Govan to be rocking.
will they really get 50000 for a league cup evening KO? impressive if so.
The rangers fans that I know (mostly educated, to be fair, rather than proletarian) are far from unanimous on independence, songs notwithstanding.
They struggled to get 30K last Saturday , most sensible fans are realising that they are constantly being fleeced by conmen and staying away, Hamilton will be one of the not so bright ones that will keep handing them his cash till the bitter end.
Average gate last year was 43,000 in division 1 and a league cup tie against Inverness is a better game to watch than normal. All the Rangers fans I know are well educated but that does not change their deep down belief in the union. It is their history and why Rangers gets 40,000+ supporters and Hamilton 2,000+ each week, despite Hamilton being in a higher league and a better team. Voting for the SNP to annoy the complacent Labour is one thing but breaking up the union is something completely different. You cannot be a true Rangers fan and a Yes voter.
I see many recent arrivals to Scotland thinking about voting Yes to try and fit in. It is sad. Our country is split down the middle and the fighting will not stop for a long time. Polls will be very hard to read as more and more people on both sides are keeping their heads down.
Yes and still begging for money as bankruptcy is looming once again. One last fleecing of the sheeple supporters coming up. Says it all when you glory hunting knuckledraggers will not support your local team but would rather glory in your bigotry from 1690 and go support a team in Glasgow. You dinosaurs are almost extinct , how pathetic is your last sentence, a small minded bigot lost in the past with no future.
Jo Swinson is being tipped as the next Scottish Secretary when Alistair Carmichael get sacked later this month.
Shadsy doesn't rate her chances of holding on to her seat. He has just lengthened her price again. That 33/1 SNP is an absolute sitter, but PP will not allow me to put any more on.
Best prices - East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson MP, Lib Dem, Maj = 2,184)
Lab 8/15 (PP) LD 13/8 (Lad) SNP 33/1 (PP) UKIP 100/1 Con 100/1
Didn’t I read somewhere that Carmichael was going to stand down at the next GE as well, and Swinson was going to stand in Orkney & Shetland?
Or am I dreaming?
Would make her family life a bit difficult, of course, if her husband holds his seat!
In the event of a Yes vote, I would expect both Scottish Government and rUK party leaders to make immediate announcements designed to manage the risk inherent in the independence process. Amongst these would be a five year period for independence to happen and a ten year currency union (or until Scotland joins the EU and adopts the Euro) whichever is the sooner... It serves nobody's interest for a fractious negotiation to ensue and, once he has won the vote Salmon will recognise this...
There won't be a formal currency union unless Scotland agrees to let London unilaterally decide Scotland's borrowing levels, tax rates, all fiscal policies, etc. How on earth could any "indy" Scotland agree to that? They would be less indy than they are now. But no rUK government could agree to a formal currency union - and backstopping Scottish banks, and guaranteeing Scottish debt WITHOUT such assurances.
Plus the voters down south hate the idea of a currency union - they saw what happened in the euro, so any party that tried it in London would lose millions of votes.
And the idea we could have a "temporary currency union" is particularly absurd: it would be a recipe for volatility as investors wait for sterling to break up. Again - look at the eurozone for a lesson, the mere idea that Greece might leave the euro was enough to cause panic.
There's no way round these nasty facts. A YES vote means chaos and higher interest rates and all the rest. It just does.
And, finally, Salmond would not wait five years for independence. That's daft.
Apart from that, excellent post.
Well, of course there will be those who adopt headless chicken mode ... And indeed there would be chaos if your view prevails that it's better to force change to happen overnight rather than over a period of time that allows new arrangements to be worked out and put in place... Allowing a currency union to last 310 years rather than 300 is hardly comparable to Greece as any calm analysis would show...
Nice to see some sense talked rather than the frothers running about shouting "we are doomed". Commonsense will prevail.
Yes, of course it will. There is no question of self-destruction or mutually assured destruction here, all sides will cope and cooperate as needed to make the wishes of the Scots electorate come to fruition. Then, once that is accomplished and we see how it works, the rest of us can start to plan to take back our regional identities and break free from the overbearing centrism of Wessex/London. Once you pop, you can't stop
Where is the money coming from to build this ? Cost would exceed £100 billion and take much longer to build. Gatwick and Heathrow are already there, with it being much cheaper and easier to build additional capacity.
Also some relief can be provided by boosting flights from Birmingham, Glasgow and Manchester. When I have spoken to other passengers on flights, it has amazed me how they have spent hours travelling to Heathrow just to get a flight for a holiday. If there was a flight option at a nearer airport they would have taken it. Quite a lot of people from parts of the UK get flights to other European hub airports to fly to long haul destinations, because it is cheaper and/or more convenient.
One quirk is that it's actually very difficult using Expedia etc. to answer the question: "How can I fly most cheaply from England to (say) Argentina?" because you have to try each city in turn. This matters if you don't live in an airport city. When in Nottingham, I had to do separate searches for East Midlands, Birmingham, Manchester and London, all of them in comparable reach in terms of ground journey. I reckon that a site that offered an "airport within 100 miles" option would do well.
Not convinced that noise is the big factor we think - I know a number of people near airports - they've either got used to it or they don't much care: that's why they moved there, to get a lower price than the same property would be in a quieter place.
On topic, I've been arguing here for about a year that the Conservative hopes must now be based primarily on one-off events, since the underlying position is really not good for them. The Indyref is the main one left. Clacton (which I expect to be a UKIP win, but that as huge as Survation's poll) will be important for morale, but isn't registering directly outside the political sphere. I doubt if many people in my patch know where it is, or care how they vote. The main effect will be indirect - if the media message is "UKIP doing well and can win" it will frustrate efforts by the other parties to squeeze them, probably all the way to May.
In case this hasn't already been answered, according to the 2011 Census (table: LC2103SC) the over 16s resident population of Scotland were born in:
Scotland 81.5% England 9.6% Northern Ireland 0.8% Republic of Ireland 0.5% Wales 0.4% Rest of Europe 3.0% Africa 1.0% Middle East and Asia 2.2% The Americas and Caribbean 0.7% Oceania and Other: 0.3%
So quite a lot weren't born in Scotland. Of course, Mr Salmond made sure people born in Scotland and living in England weren't allowed to vote.
Rightly so , if they are not in Scotland they should have no say.
This was the second suggestion for such an airport. Thir first was some 40 years ago, and based North of the Thames mouth, around Foulness Island. The Foulness scheme fell partly admittedly because of conservation issues but also because of the enormous disruption to established communities which would have resulted.
Big problem, of course, is what are we going to do with airports when the oil runs out, or at least gets a lot less available than it is now? Would not an offshore island airport end up being a total white elephant not too liong after it was built?
Actually, there have been near-constant run of proposed schemes for a Thames airport in various places; Foulness was just the one that got nearest acceptance (I think, and am probably wrong, that they build Stansted instead).
The big problem is not the one you mention. It is how we cope with the ever-increasing air traffic (both passenger and freight) without harming the country's economy by not being able to cope with demand. I cannot see how Heathrow can do that in the long term. It is too hemmed in.
Your oil-running-out argument is ridiculous. If oil prices rise so much that flight becomes unecomonic, the world economy would be affected to such a degree that a white elephant airport would be the least of our worries.
Again, it is an argument for stagnation.
Having lived in the area for a long time I don’t recall anything like a "near-constant run of proposed schemes”. Certainly not ones which got any serious backing. The nearest to sensible was Manston. Stansted was a going concern as a civilian airport several years before Foulness (or Maplin as it was otherwise known) was thought of. I agree, though, that there was more development there after the Foulness/Maplin project was abandoned.
The recommendation in the mid 60’s was for another inland airport. Buckinghamshire, I think.
It is quite possible to think of adequate surface transport being possible without oil, whereas AFAIK it is unlikely that significant air transport will be.
There was Cliffe and Sheppey off the top of my head, and I think Foulness was being promoted again in the 1980s (ISTR it was mentioned in 1993/4 at an ICE meeting). These schemes are never fully dropped, and keep on getting proposed. So whilst I was wrong in near-constant, there was certainly more than just Foulness.
"It is quite possible to think of adequate surface transport being possible without oil"
Go on then. Shipping alone requires massive amounts of oil.
@JosiasJessop Oil will not run out for a long time. What will happen is that it, along with other resources, will cost more to extract. Add this to an increasing demand from what we used to think of as the "third world" and you are on the path to an economic crash that will make the present one feel like a small sneeze. There is of course the "usual" remedy for this type of situation, but as it will probably involve large mushroom clouds, it is probably best avoided.
I see the lovely unionists , Carlotta, Charles and Davidl were supporting thugs beating up women as just being unfortunate last night and suggesting the unconscious pregnant woman was faking. How very unionist.
Where is the money coming from to build this ? Cost would exceed £100 billion and take much longer to build. Gatwick and Heathrow are already there, with it being much cheaper and easier to build additional capacity.
Also some relief can be provided by boosting flights from Birmingham, Glasgow and Manchester. When I have spoken to other passengers on flights, it has amazed me how they have spent hours travelling to Heathrow just to get a flight for a holiday. If there was a flight option at a nearer airport they would have taken it. Quite a lot of people from parts of the UK get flights to other European hub airports to fly to long haul destinations, because it is cheaper and/or more convenient.
One quirk is that it's actually very difficult using Expedia etc. to answer the question: "How can I fly most cheaply from England to (say) Argentina?" because you have to try each city in turn. This matters if you don't live in an airport city. When in Nottingham, I had to do separate searches for East Midlands, Birmingham, Manchester and London, all of them in comparable reach in terms of ground journey. I reckon that a site that offered an "airport within 100 miles" option would do well.
Not convinced that noise is the big factor we think - I know a number of people near airports - they've either got used to it or they don't much care: that's why they moved there, to get a lower price than the same property would be in a quieter place.
On topic, I've been arguing here for about a year that the Conservative hopes must now be based primarily on one-off events, since the underlying position is really not good for them. The Indyref is the main one left. Clacton (which I expect to be a UKIP win, but that as huge as Survation's poll) will be important for morale, but isn't registering directly outside the political sphere. I doubt if many people in my patch know where it is, or care how they vote. The main effect will be indirect - if the media message is "UKIP doing well and can win" it will frustrate efforts by the other parties to squeeze them, probably all the way to May.
As one of the many who grew up under the Heathrow flight path I can assure you that is not true, well documented health effects etc. You are implying an irrational conspiracy by the MPs and residents of SW London. The extension of the times allowed for flights to 5.30 has been very noticeable.
Your oil-running-out argument is ridiculous. If oil prices rise so much that flight becomes unecomonic, the world economy would be affected to such a degree that a white elephant airport would be the least of our worries.
In planning a new airport for a ~40 year timeframe one thing we should consider is how future-proof it might be.
Would it be suitable for airships, spacecraft, ramjets, etc?
I would imagine that air transport would be the last sector to be priced out of using oil, after heating, road and sea, and one could probably already manufacture aviation fuel using renewable energy, though this would currently not be cost-competitive.
Too much fog in the Thames estuary I would have thought. Damn silly place to put an airport, though it may be that all the alternatives are even worse.
"Would it be suitable for airships, spacecraft, ramjets, etc?"
These are the last questions we should be asking, as we have no idea what the requirements for economic airships, spacecraft and ramjets would be, *if* they come along. We can guess, but any technology change that makes them economic would probably alter those guesses.
It's like asking Brunel to take into account potential horseless carriages when he built the GWR.
As an example, the UK is in the wrong position for most orbital spaceflight. We could do economic polar flights, but we would need to launch from the north of Scotland to get most bang for our buck, and launch eastwards (from memory). Worse, you need to ensure that rocket debris (e.g. used stages) will not drop on another country (esc. the Russians). This is why France built their spaceport in a different country on the equator.
Any technology making orbital or transport sub-orbital flights economic (e.g. Reaction Engines and Skylon) would be so different from existing technology as to make those requirements potentially void.
Fog may indeed be a problem. But Heathrow gets fogged in as well, and the lack of excess capacity causes much greater problems (planes in fog have increased intervals, and as Heathrow runs at near 100% capacity it cannot cope). A hub airport would have that excess capacity.
@JosiasJessop Oil will not run out for a long time. What will happen is that it, along with other resources, will cost more to extract. Add this to an increasing demand from what we used to think of as the "third world" and you are on the path to an economic crash that will make the present one feel like a small sneeze. There is of course the "usual" remedy for this type of situation, but as it will probably involve large mushroom clouds, it is probably best avoided.
No, the usual remedy for this situation is for entrepreneurs to seek opportunities to satisfy the demand profitably... which they will and have done for millennia...
In case this hasn't already been answered, according to the 2011 Census (table: LC2103SC) the over 16s resident population of Scotland were born in:
Scotland 81.5% England 9.6% Northern Ireland 0.8% Republic of Ireland 0.5% Wales 0.4% Rest of Europe 3.0% Africa 1.0% Middle East and Asia 2.2% The Americas and Caribbean 0.7% Oceania and Other: 0.3%
So quite a lot weren't born in Scotland. Of course, Mr Salmond made sure people born in Scotland and living in England weren't allowed to vote.
Rightly so , if they are not in Scotland they should have no say.
Am I right in thinking that some Scots living outside of the UK have got a vote? That is wrong too if true.
The point I was making with the stats is that there can be no complaints if the English swing it in favour of no on the 18th.
Personally, I'm hoping for a yes vote, it would be very funny.
I read somewhere that the closeness of the Quebec vote, or perhaps more accurately the fact that in the days before hand it looked like the separatists would win, was ironically one reason why it is now dead as an issue for the foreseeable future. The prospect that it might actually happen spooked the markets dramatically and gave the voters a proper look into the abyss that they almost jumped into.
If Scotland vote yes and there is a dramatic reaction with capital flight, and financial institutions making panicked announcements that they will be immediately relocating then things could get very interesting very quickly. I suppose in some ways that might be what the SNP are banking on, with the panicked response from Govt to backtrack on currency union (although i still don't know if the SNP REALLY want a currency union - it was perhaps a mistake from the Govt to completely rule it out, rather than state the terms upon which it would be theoretically acceptable (whilst making those terms obviously unacceptable to the SNP).
S**t, still haven't got around to opening that HSBC bank account...
In all seriousness I would move any money south of the border now. We're breaking up 300 year old country with one part, Scotland, promising to renege on debt and no chance of a formal currency union unless it's on terms which Scotland cannot accept (England deciding fiscal and taxation matters for the Scots etc).
The effects won't be immediate. There won't be wolverines in Leith on September 19th, but a gradual realisation of the horrific complexities and plunging uncertainties will take hold. Investment into the UK will dry up etc etc
I would also move money out of sterling. I cannot see how cutting the country in half is going to boost global confidence in the British £. I reckon the pound might tank, over time, as the chaos slowly unfurls.
Not a pleasant prospect, as I sit here in the Rhineland Palatinate.
If Scottish financial institutions announce on September 19th that they are relocating to the UK will it have that much long term impact?
It will certainly be a boost for the South East - lots of lovely high earning jobs, tax income and property being bought and rented.
And with Labour unable to win in May 2015 without its Scotty MPs.
A YES vote whilst emotionally painful will be in the long term interests of England. The party that is most swift to chop off Scotland and any financial outgoings to them will prosper at the GE.
@JosiasJessop Oil will not run out for a long time. What will happen is that it, along with other resources, will cost more to extract. Add this to an increasing demand from what we used to think of as the "third world" and you are on the path to an economic crash that will make the present one feel like a small sneeze. There is of course the "usual" remedy for this type of situation, but as it will probably involve large mushroom clouds, it is probably best avoided.
Actually the usual remedy is technological innovative dampening demand as well as providing alternatives, as is currently happening.
Where is the money coming from to build this ? Cost would exceed £100 billion and take much longer to build. Gatwick and Heathrow are already there, with it being much cheaper and easier to build additional capacity.
Also some relief can be provided by boosting flights from Birmingham, Glasgow and Manchester. When I have spoken to other passengers on flights, it has amazed me how they have spent hours travelling to Heathrow just to get a flight for a holiday. If there was a flight option at a nearer airport they would have taken it. Quite a lot of people from parts of the UK get flights to other European hub airports to fly to long haul destinations, because it is cheaper and/or more convenient.
One quirk is that it's actually very difficult using Expedia etc. to answer the question: "How can I fly most cheaply from England to (say) Argentina?"
Skyscanner is the closest to meeting your requirement. You can enter any UK airport as the departure point and it will then give you options. Where there is no direct flight, you can click on your nearest regional aiport and it will give you options.
On a slightly different note, it does make you think whether Europe is really in such a mess, when airports in UK, Germany and Netherlands are having to look at expansion to deal with numbers. The number of visitors to Europe for business and pleasure seems to increase every year. Airport expansion and making it easier for people outside of Europe to come here to spend their money must surely be a priority.
@Rexel56 "the usual remedy for this situation is for entrepreneurs to seek opportunities to satisfy the demand profitably" You live in the La La land of unlimited resources?, lucky you, the rest of us live on a small blue planet that we used to think was limitless.
Jo Swinson is being tipped as the next Scottish Secretary when Alistair Carmichael get sacked later this month.
Shadsy doesn't rate her chances of holding on to her seat. He has just lengthened her price again. That 33/1 SNP is an absolute sitter, but PP will not allow me to put any more on.
Best prices - East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson MP, Lib Dem, Maj = 2,184)
Lab 8/15 (PP) LD 13/8 (Lad) SNP 33/1 (PP) UKIP 100/1 Con 100/1
Didn’t I read somewhere that Carmichael was going to stand down at the next GE as well, and Swinson was going to stand in Orkney & Shetland?
Or am I dreaming?
Would make her family life a bit difficult, of course, if her husband holds his seat!
I have never seen either of those rumours before.
Alistair Carmichael is only 49 years old, is in good health, is a cabinet minister, and has a rock solid majority. I have never seen or heard anything that even gives the slightest hint that he would consider retiring.
In fact, last week he is on record as saying the exact opposite: that he intends to remain active in politics irrespective of whether the result is Yes or No.
Swinson is a dead duck. Her career was over the moment the rose garden occured.
LATEST:South Yorkshire police initiates "fully independent and impartial investigation" into force's handling of Rotherham abuse.
No details yet on BBC.
Both South Yorks police and Rotherham council declined to appear on last night's Panorama on this matter. The programme mainly featured the number of times that complaints by the abused and impartial investigators were brushed aside or redacted by the Council and ignored by the police.
The Guardian has a follow up story on last nights Panorama and the 2002 cover-up.
"Home Office worker investigating Rotherham child abuse 'had data stolen'
Local council took data from office, accused me of insensitivity and tried to sack me, researcher claims on Panorama"
@Rexel56 "the usual remedy for this situation is for entrepreneurs to seek opportunities to satisfy the demand profitably" You live in the La La land of unlimited resources?, lucky you, the rest of us live on a small blue planet that we used to think was limitless.
Er, yes.... Resources are effectively unlimited... Take energy for example, when do you expect it to run out?
Actually, there have been near-constant run of proposed schemes for a Thames airport in various places; Foulness was just the one that got nearest acceptance (I think, and am probably wrong, that they build Stansted instead).
The big problem is not the one you mention. It is how we cope with the ever-increasing air traffic (both passenger and freight) without harming the country's economy by not being able to cope with demand. I cannot see how Heathrow can do that in the long term. It is too hemmed in.
Your oil-running-out argument is ridiculous. If oil prices rise so much that flight becomes unecomonic, the world economy would be affected to such a degree that a white elephant airport would be the least of our worries.
Again, it is an argument for stagnation.
Having lived in the area for a long time I don’t recall anything like a "near-constant run of proposed schemes”. Certainly not ones which got any serious backing. The nearest to sensible was Manston. Stansted was a going concern as a civilian airport several years before Foulness (or Maplin as it was otherwise known) was thought of. I agree, though, that there was more development there after the Foulness/Maplin project was abandoned.
The recommendation in the mid 60’s was for another inland airport. Buckinghamshire, I think.
It is quite possible to think of adequate surface transport being possible without oil, whereas AFAIK it is unlikely that significant air transport will be.
There was Cliffe and Sheppey off the top of my head, and I think Foulness was being promoted again in the 1980s (ISTR it was mentioned in 1993/4 at an ICE meeting). These schemes are never fully dropped, and keep on getting proposed. So whilst I was wrong in near-constant, there was certainly more than just Foulness.
"It is quite possible to think of adequate surface transport being possible without oil"
Go on then. Shipping alone requires massive amounts of oil.
You’re right about Cliffe/Sheppey. Sorry. As I say I lived in, and was politically active in, the Thames Estuary area for many years and I don’t recall any re-run of the Foulness/Maplin proposals. You may, of course be right; I’m relying on memory here.
Des anyone know, or have a good estimate, of the number of Scottish electors who aren't Scottish? If the "No" majority is smaller than that number the fireworks will surely fly - and I'm not talking celebration, either...
At the 2001 census approx 7% of people resident in Scotland were "Other white British" (ie. white English, white Welsh, white Ulster). That figure is probably higher now. Guesstimate: 9% (?)
I realise that those stats are old and do not answer your exact question, but they are the best I could come up with with 3 minutes googling.
So, let us assume that approx 10% of the Scottish population "aren't Scottish" (your words note; this is a very problematic and controversial definition by the way).
Let us also assume that No wins with a majority of less than 10 points (eg. last night's YouGov).
Well, it doesn't take a genius to work out who would have "won" it for PM David Cameron. And it won't have been The Sun.
Horses for courses.
Since 20% of all people born in Scotland live elsewhere in the UK and can't vote, nobody can really say what Scots think. The Indyref is a survey of people resident in Scotland.
So, now the independence referendum is reduced to the status of "a survey" is it? Ho ho. Look who's losing.
Just 16 days to save the Yoonyun.
And as for losing YES hasn't been ahead once in the campaign, it shows you chaps can't do maths.
contaminated database of (ahem) "respondents".
Personally I think NO will still win.
Postal votes are being cast - and NO is still ahead in the polls - have YES left it too late?
We'll know soon enough.
And if it is a YES, the reaction from England will not be the anticipated wailing and gnashing of teeth - more 'Here's your hat, where's your hurry' and 'You've made your bed - you lie in it...'
However they may also be too busy saving themselves to be worrying about being bitter
I don't see where you get this idea they'll be bitter from.
SD Indeed, the final Quebec polls all had Yes ahead in 1995, but virtually all the final remaining undecideds went for No, allowing No to scrape across the line
That is why I really do not want to see any "Yes Ahead" headlines. All my colleagues are praying for them, but I am of the strong opinion that we are best to be seen to be the underdogs right up until the very final stages of the game.
In fact, my perfect game scenario is that we see zero Yes Ahead polls and then give No a complete thumping in the GOTV operation on Thursday 18 September.
I'd love to see Kellner and Co making up their excuses in retrospect!
Des anyone know, or have a good estimate, of the number of Scottish electors who aren't Scottish? If the "No" majority is smaller than that number the fireworks will surely fly - and I'm not talking celebration, either...
At the 2001 census approx 7% of people resident in Scotland were "Other white British" (ie. white English, white Welsh, white Ulster). That figure is probably higher now. Guesstimate: 9% (?)
Well, it doesn't take a genius to work out who would have "won" it for PM David Cameron. And it won't have been The Sun.
Horses for courses.
Since 20% of all people born in Scotland live elsewhere in the UK and can't vote, nobody can really say what Scots think. The Indyref is a survey of people resident in Scotland.
So, now the independence referendum is reduced to the status of "a survey" is it? Ho ho. Look who's losing.
Just 16 days to save the Yoonyun.
And as for losing YES hasn't been ahead once in the campaign, it shows you chaps can't do maths.
contaminated database of (ahem) "respondents".
Personally I think NO will still win.
Postal votes are being cast - and NO is still ahead in the polls - have YES left it too late?
We'll know soon enough.
And if it is a YES, the reaction from England will not be the anticipated wailing and gnashing of teeth - more 'Here's your hat, where's your hurry' and 'You've made your bed - you lie in it...'
However they may also be too busy saving themselves to be worrying about being bitter
I don't see where you get this idea they'll be bitter from.
It will be 'Fine, on your way then'......
there will be no bitterness either way - we will have to make the best of it.
However there should be no favours nor golden goodbyes to the Republic of Scotland - and swift moves to protect our economy now that we will have a neighbour using our currency in a dollarisation scenario.
I see the lovely unionists , Carlotta, Charles and Davidl were supporting thugs beating up women as just being unfortunate last night and suggesting the unconscious pregnant woman was faking. How very unionist.
That is not true.
Please withdraw and apologise.
malcolm is not only a stranger to reason, but also the truth.....his 'Better Together violence' stories having collapsed as swiftly and ignominiously as his Brian Souter is not a Knight awarded by Westminster Turnips the SNP.....
At the end of the day, the YES camp and supporters will be more motivated to vote on the day.
NO needs a much bigger lead going into the final part of campaigning.
A significant chunk of the current No support is extremely weak. Blame David Cameron for excluding Devo Max from the ballot paper. If he had allowed it then the Union would be rock-solid safe at this point.
SD Indeed, the final Quebec polls all had Yes ahead in 1995, but virtually all the final remaining undecideds went for No, allowing No to scrape across the line
That is why I really do not want to see any "Yes Ahead" headlines. All my colleagues are praying for them, but I am of the strong opinion that we are best to be seen to be the underdogs right up until the very final stages of the game.
In fact, my perfect game scenario is that we see zero Yes Ahead polls and then give No a complete thumping in the GOTV operation on Thursday 18 September.
I'd love to see Kellner and Co making up their excuses in retrospect!
I'm not sure the polling companies will have to make any excuses to be honest. The GOTV campaign may make all the difference on the day.
As long as they're not miles out, then polling, especially of this nature is not exact.
At the end of the day, the YES camp and supporters will be more motivated to vote on the day.
NO needs a much bigger lead going into the final part of campaigning.
A significant chunk of the current No support is extremely weak. Blame David Cameron for excluding Devo Max from the ballot paper. If he had allowed it then the Union would be rock-solid safe at this point.
The sensible thing would have been devoplus rather than devomax. It would still have won.
At the end of the day, the YES camp and supporters will be more motivated to vote on the day.
NO needs a much bigger lead going into the final part of campaigning.
A significant chunk of the current No support is extremely weak. Blame David Cameron for excluding Devo Max from the ballot paper. If he had allowed it then the Union would be rock-solid safe at this point.
The sensible thing would have been devoplus rather than devomax. It would still have won.
Agreed.
Either way, common sense and David Cameron do not belong in the same sentence. Salmond played him well. The fool actually thought he'd got one up on Salmond! It beggars belief.
Jo Swinson is being tipped as the next Scottish Secretary when Alistair Carmichael get sacked later this month.
Shadsy doesn't rate her chances of holding on to her seat. He has just lengthened her price again. That 33/1 SNP is an absolute sitter, but PP will not allow me to put any more on.
Best prices - East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson MP, Lib Dem, Maj = 2,184)
Lab 8/15 (PP) LD 13/8 (Lad) SNP 33/1 (PP) UKIP 100/1 Con 100/1
Didn’t I read somewhere that Carmichael was going to stand down at the next GE as well, and Swinson was going to stand in Orkney & Shetland?
Or am I dreaming?
Would make her family life a bit difficult, of course, if her husband holds his seat!
I have never seen either of those rumours before.
Alistair Carmichael is only 49 years old, is in good health, is a cabinet minister, and has a rock solid majority. I have never seen or heard anything that even gives the slightest hint that he would consider retiring.
In fact, last week he is on record as saying the exact opposite: that he intends to remain active in politics irrespective of whether the result is Yes or No.
Swinson is a dead duck. Her career was over the moment the rose garden occured.
Thanks. Must have been dreaming. Or misreading something. Carmichael did get pretty well done over by Sturgeon, though. Otherwise agree that if Swinson fights he current seat she’s going to be out. Pity, because she comes across well. LD’s might recover after the departure of Clegg, though.
At the end of the day, the YES camp and supporters will be more motivated to vote on the day.
NO needs a much bigger lead going into the final part of campaigning.
A significant chunk of the current No support is extremely weak. Blame David Cameron for excluding Devo Max from the ballot paper. If he had allowed it then the Union would be rock-solid safe at this point.
I'm not sure the Devo-Max would have been acceptable to the UK though (without large changes to the Union). Once you get effective power over both taxation and spending, the Union is dead anyway,
In the small number of posts for JackW over the past few weeks I've made it clear to Pb that they are posted by me and not Jack but have been undertaken for him on his Pb account.
@Rexel56 I don't expect energy to run out except in the case of "entropy" which will take an unimaginable amount of time, Even the case of oil, some will remain, but it's rarity will increase the price, which the world could cope with, except that fuel is only a small part of the petrochemical output. As an example. The worlds agricultural output relies heavily on the industry for fertilizer,and as it is becoming harder to extract, we need more of it to keep up food production. Your dream of capitalism alone having the answer is asinine, the market is driven by profit, and profit has no consciousness with which to see the direction it takes. The "state" is supposed to guide it, but in our topsy turvy world, it leads the state. (not that the "state" is much better, but it should be in theory if not in practice)
time to question the PM on his plans to block Scottish MPs from voting on rUk issues in the event of a Yes vote.
Interesting consequence - the Conservatives would have an overall majority. The Libs could leave the coalition and work on "redefining their identity".
At the end of the day, the YES camp and supporters will be more motivated to vote on the day.
NO needs a much bigger lead going into the final part of campaigning.
A significant chunk of the current No support is extremely weak. Blame David Cameron for excluding Devo Max from the ballot paper. If he had allowed it then the Union would be rock-solid safe at this point.
Well, maybe... An alternative would have been to have a very clear, simple message that a No vote is a vote for Devomax because x, y and z will happen, in fact the legislation has already started... If there had been a DevoMax option and the responses to what that means had been as unconvincing as Darling on Employment powers then, well who knows...
SD Indeed, the final Quebec polls all had Yes ahead in 1995, but virtually all the final remaining undecideds went for No, allowing No to scrape across the line
That is why I really do not want to see any "Yes Ahead" headlines. All my colleagues are praying for them, but I am of the strong opinion that we are best to be seen to be the underdogs right up until the very final stages of the game.
In fact, my perfect game scenario is that we see zero Yes Ahead polls and then give No a complete thumping in the GOTV operation on Thursday 18 September.
I'd love to see Kellner and Co making up their excuses in retrospect!
I'm not sure the polling companies will have to make any excuses to be honest. The GOTV campaign may make all the difference on the day.
As long as they're not miles out, then polling, especially of this nature is not exact.
Indeed. But then one has to wonder why all the geniuses around here were writing off the Yes campaign on the basis of the polls (eg. Mark Senior was in comedy classic territory after the 1st debate). Everybody knows that the pollsters are effectively trying to pin the tail on the donkey without the luxury of peeking under the blindfold.
time to question the PM on his plans to block Scottish MPs from voting on rUk issues in the event of a Yes vote.
Interesting consequence - the Conservatives would have an overall majority. The Libs could leave the coalition and work on "redefining their identity".
At the end of the day, the YES camp and supporters will be more motivated to vote on the day.
NO needs a much bigger lead going into the final part of campaigning.
A significant chunk of the current No support is extremely weak. Blame David Cameron for excluding Devo Max from the ballot paper. If he had allowed it then the Union would be rock-solid safe at this point.
I'm not sure the Devo-Max would have been acceptable to the UK though (without large changes to the Union). Once you get effective power over both taxation and spending, the Union is dead anyway,
Something very close to Devo Max will be the result whether Scotland votes yes or no.
SD Indeed, the final Quebec polls all had Yes ahead in 1995, but virtually all the final remaining undecideds went for No, allowing No to scrape across the line
That is why I really do not want to see any "Yes Ahead" headlines. All my colleagues are praying for them, but I am of the strong opinion that we are best to be seen to be the underdogs right up until the very final stages of the game.
In fact, my perfect game scenario is that we see zero Yes Ahead polls and then give No a complete thumping in the GOTV operation on Thursday 18 September.
I'd love to see Kellner and Co making up their excuses in retrospect!
I'm not sure the polling companies will have to make any excuses to be honest. The GOTV campaign may make all the difference on the day.
As long as they're not miles out, then polling, especially of this nature is not exact.
Indeed. But then one has to wonder why all the geniuses around here were writing off the Yes campaign on the basis of the polls (eg. Mark Senior was in comedy classic territory after the 1st debate). Everybody knows that the pollsters are effectively trying to pin the tail on the donkey without the luxury of peeking under the blindfold.
Because everyone is thinking emotionally about the issue, its nigh on impossible not to that's why.
This goes way beyond a general election, this is the core of everyone in the UKs identity,
At the end of the day, the YES camp and supporters will be more motivated to vote on the day.
NO needs a much bigger lead going into the final part of campaigning.
A significant chunk of the current No support is extremely weak. Blame David Cameron for excluding Devo Max from the ballot paper. If he had allowed it then the Union would be rock-solid safe at this point.
The sensible thing would have been devoplus rather than devomax. It would still have won.
Agreed.
Either way, common sense and David Cameron do not belong in the same sentence. Salmond played him well. The fool actually thought he'd got one up on Salmond! It beggars belief.
Labour NEC have suspended 3 Rotherham Cllrs and the former Deputy Leader of the Council (who is not a councillor anymore). They also take over selection process.
At the end of the day, the YES camp and supporters will be more motivated to vote on the day.
NO needs a much bigger lead going into the final part of campaigning.
A significant chunk of the current No support is extremely weak. Blame David Cameron for excluding Devo Max from the ballot paper. If he had allowed it then the Union would be rock-solid safe at this point.
Well, maybe... An alternative would have been to have a very clear, simple message that a No vote is a vote for Devomax because x, y and z will happen, in fact the legislation has already started... If there had been a DevoMax option and the responses to what that means had been as unconvincing as Darling on Employment powers then, well who knows...
- "a very clear, simple message that a No vote is a vote for Devomax because x, y and z will happen"
How is that compatible with Ruth Davidson's "line in the sand"? Or bampots like Foulkes? The long, long list of idiots within the Unionist ranks, both Con and Lab, would have made your proposition utterly impossible. The No camp would have fatally fractured.
If the Scots do vote Yes, then it is certainly true that the whole of UK politics will be plunged into turmoil. Quite what the knock-on effect on the rest of the UK would be is anyone's guess, frankly, but I think SeanT is right that there would be a significant short-term economic and market effect, if only because of the uncertainty.
What is less often noted is that such a decision would also send shockwaves through the whole of the European Union. Of course Scotland per se is negligibly small in the overall European scheme, but the psychological impact of the UK breaking up, the possible implications for the EU referendum, and the boost which it would give to other separatist movements around Europe would be immense.
If you have investments it might be prudent to review them to see how Salmond-proof they are.
At the end of the day, the YES camp and supporters will be more motivated to vote on the day.
NO needs a much bigger lead going into the final part of campaigning.
A significant chunk of the current No support is extremely weak. Blame David Cameron for excluding Devo Max from the ballot paper. If he had allowed it then the Union would be rock-solid safe at this point.
I'm not sure the Devo-Max would have been acceptable to the UK though (without large changes to the Union). Once you get effective power over both taxation and spending, the Union is dead anyway,
Something very close to Devo Max will be the result whether Scotland votes yes or no.
That's true. And post Sept 19, even if it is No, there's going to be a lot of fall out on the implications of that.
Devo-Max changes Westminster hugely, and that needs to be considered.
At the end of the day, the YES camp and supporters will be more motivated to vote on the day.
NO needs a much bigger lead going into the final part of campaigning.
A significant chunk of the current No support is extremely weak. Blame David Cameron for excluding Devo Max from the ballot paper. If he had allowed it then the Union would be rock-solid safe at this point.
The sensible thing would have been devoplus rather than devomax. It would still have won.
Agreed.
Either way, common sense and David Cameron do not belong in the same sentence. Salmond played him well. The fool actually thought he'd got one up on Salmond! It beggars belief.
Who's counting his chickens now ?
No census of our avian pals from me. You are looking for Jack W, Mark Senior et al.
How long did the first indyref debate bounce last? If the current yes momentum is just a bounce from the second debate (which of course it might not be), how much of it would we expect to fade by the voting date? And how much of it will get picked up by postal votes before then?
If the Scots do vote Yes, then it is certainly true that the whole of UK politics will be plunged into turmoil. Quite what the knock-on effect on the rest of the UK would be is anyone's guess, frankly, but I think SeanT is right that there would be a significant short-term economic and market effect, if only because of the uncertainty.
What is less often noted is that such a decision would also send shockwaves through the whole of the European Union. Of course Scotland per se is negligibly small in the overall European scheme, but the psychological impact of the UK breaking up, the possible implications for the EU referendum, and the boost which it would give to other separatist movements around Europe would be immense.
If you have investments it might be prudent to review them to see how Salmond-proof they are.
Scottish waters contain 95% of the European Union's oil reserves. Hardly "negligible".
If the Scots do vote Yes, then it is certainly true that the whole of UK politics will be plunged into turmoil. Quite what the knock-on effect on the rest of the UK would be is anyone's guess, frankly, but I think SeanT is right that there would be a significant short-term economic and market effect, if only because of the uncertainty.
What is less often noted is that such a decision would also send shockwaves through the whole of the European Union. Of course Scotland per se is negligibly small in the overall European scheme, but the psychological impact of the UK breaking up, the possible implications for the EU referendum, and the boost which it would give to other separatist movements around Europe would be immense.
If you have investments it might be prudent to review them to see how Salmond-proof they are.
On the flip side in the medium term the Uk will have 10% less socialist MPs - this will pay economic dividends once we have a post split GE - not just in numbers but in personnel - Scotland has provided both the LDs and Labour with some of their "leading" politicians.
At the end of the day, the YES camp and supporters will be more motivated to vote on the day.
NO needs a much bigger lead going into the final part of campaigning.
A significant chunk of the current No support is extremely weak. Blame David Cameron for excluding Devo Max from the ballot paper. If he had allowed it then the Union would be rock-solid safe at this point.
Well, maybe... An alternative would have been to have a very clear, simple message that a No vote is a vote for Devomax because x, y and z will happen, in fact the legislation has already started... If there had been a DevoMax option and the responses to what that means had been as unconvincing as Darling on Employment powers then, well who knows...
- "a very clear, simple message that a No vote is a vote for Devomax because x, y and z will happen"
How is that compatible with Ruth Davidson's "line in the sand"? Or bampots like Foulkes? The long, long list of idiots within the Unionist ranks, both Con and Lab, would have made your proposition utterly impossible. The No camp would have fatally fractured.
Which is kind of the point I was trying to make.... Wouldn't BT have fatally undermined a DevoMax option on the ballot paper in just the ways you describe?
I see the lovely unionists , Carlotta, Charles and Davidl were supporting thugs beating up women as just being unfortunate last night and suggesting the unconscious pregnant woman was faking. How very unionist.
That is not true.
Please withdraw and apologise.
go read your comments, they were not condemning what was an assault by a thug on a pregnant woman. It was a cosy unionist chat about her pretending etc. how nasty YES is blah blah
In case this hasn't already been answered, according to the 2011 Census (table: LC2103SC) the over 16s resident population of Scotland were born in:
Scotland 81.5% England 9.6% Northern Ireland 0.8% Republic of Ireland 0.5% Wales 0.4% Rest of Europe 3.0% Africa 1.0% Middle East and Asia 2.2% The Americas and Caribbean 0.7% Oceania and Other: 0.3%
So quite a lot weren't born in Scotland. Of course, Mr Salmond made sure people born in Scotland and living in England weren't allowed to vote.
Rightly so , if they are not in Scotland they should have no say.
Am I right in thinking that some Scots living outside of the UK have got a vote? That is wrong too if true.
The point I was making with the stats is that there can be no complaints if the English swing it in favour of no on the 18th.
Personally, I'm hoping for a yes vote, it would be very funny.
Only people with residence in Scotland eligible for Holyrood elections can vote.
Comments
The big problem is not the one you mention. It is how we cope with the ever-increasing air traffic (both passenger and freight) without harming the country's economy by not being able to cope with demand. I cannot see how Heathrow can do that in the long term. It is too hemmed in.
Your oil-running-out argument is ridiculous. If oil prices rise so much that flight becomes unecomonic, the world economy would be affected to such a degree that a white elephant airport would be the least of our worries.
Again, it is an argument for stagnation.
I've been lucky enough to spend some time in Montreal and Toronto recently and the Quebec experience certainly makes an interesting comparison with Scotland.
My understanding is that although the Yes side lost, the vote was so close that it got much of what it wanted anyway. Quebec became generally far more Francophone. This has probably been most evident in the jobs market, and the increased predominance of the French language. There was, I am told, also a flight of capital and business, notably to Toronto which has become a much more prosperous city as a consequence.
Montreal struck me as pretty down at heel. Locals suggested it wasn't like that before the vote and blamed 'French maladministration' and the unchecked growth of local Mafias as much as the capital flight.
The person to ask about this is our house cartoonist, Marf. She was brought up in Montreal, and her father, Mordecai Richler, wrote the definitive book on Separatism at the time - Oh Canada, Oh Quebec: Requiem For A Divided Country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh_Canada!_Oh_Quebec!_Requiem_for_a_Divided_Country
Sadly, Mordecai is no longer with us to give his views but a thread piece by Marf on the subject would be timely and informative. Perhaps Mike could ask her?
Malcolm I don't know you and there's no need to be rude to me. Jack is not in Edinburgh and only briefly visited there a few weeks ago.
Here's a hint: Yes was recently being laid, at respectable volumes, at prices between 7 and 8.
Today Yes is being laid at 4.5.
Duh.
Western lifestyle is unsustainable.
Chief Constable David Crompton said "A fully independent and impartial investigation is required to ensure that people have confidence that organisations or any individuals will be investigated fairly, rigorously and with complete impartiality.
Does this mean it's a criminal investigation rather than another inquiry into what happened?
All I can say is I see no momentum or real presence from BT , on the other hand YES is everywhere motivated with loads and loads of people working their socks off.
For me it is a bit like autumn , at first it comes on subtly but you feel it coming.
I hope it is YES but for sure NO will be very very lucky to hold out. Given the lead they had their complacency has been breathtaking, they have relied on sad old losers from Labour and all men. It is unbelievable how poor they are.
To KW,
I have traded insults with Jack many times, but whatever the reason for his absence, wish him all the best from me.
Ignore us at anytime, we can tend toward unthinking comments that might sound strange to others.
There will be a transition period. It is no big deal.
Stansted was a going concern as a civilian airport several years before Foulness (or Maplin as it was otherwise known) was thought of. I agree, though, that there was more development there after the Foulness/Maplin project was abandoned.
The recommendation in the mid 60’s was for another inland airport. Buckinghamshire, I think.
It is quite possible to think of adequate surface transport being possible without oil, whereas AFAIK it is unlikely that significant air transport will be.
Shadsy doesn't rate her chances of holding on to her seat. He has just lengthened her price again. That 33/1 SNP is an absolute sitter, but PP will not allow me to put any more on.
Best prices - East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson MP, Lib Dem, Maj = 2,184)
Lab 8/15 (PP)
LD 13/8 (Lad)
SNP 33/1 (PP)
UKIP 100/1
Con 100/1
http://wingsoverscotland.com/why-labour-doesnt-need-scotland/
What would surely make a larger difference is Scottish MPs no longer being in Cabinet or Prime Minister. Could Sir Alec Douglas Home have become Prime Minister, for instance? Gordon Brown was clearly Scottish. Tony Blair was born and educated in Scotland. Even David Cameron is part-Scot.
I see many recent arrivals to Scotland thinking about voting Yes to try and fit in. It is sad. Our country is split down the middle and the fighting will not stop for a long time. Polls will be very hard to read as more and more people on both sides are keeping their heads down.
No Sean, the "left" hates those who have a selfish and uncaring attitude to anyone but themselves.
England or the union is not the problem, for most people in Scotland it neo-capitalism. (even amongst the "natural Tories" in Scotland, it is hard to find your level of insanity)
Scotland 81.5%
England 9.6%
Northern Ireland 0.8%
Republic of Ireland 0.5%
Wales 0.4%
Rest of Europe 3.0%
Africa 1.0%
Middle East and Asia 2.2%
The Americas and Caribbean 0.7%
Oceania and Other: 0.3%
So quite a lot weren't born in Scotland. Of course, Mr Salmond made sure people born in Scotland and living in England weren't allowed to vote.
Would it be suitable for airships, spacecraft, ramjets, etc?
I would imagine that air transport would be the last sector to be priced out of using oil, after heating, road and sea, and one could probably already manufacture aviation fuel using renewable energy, though this would currently not be cost-competitive.
Too much fog in the Thames estuary I would have thought. Damn silly place to put an airport, though it may be that all the alternatives are even worse.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1971/feb/23/third-london-airport-the-roskill-report
In the small number of posts for JackW over the past few weeks I've made it clear to Pb that they are posted by me and not Jack but have been undertaken for him on his Pb account.
At the £100 stake level the current prices are:
Yes 3.95
No 1.31
At the £1000 stake level the current prices are:
Yes 3.85
No 1.31
Good luck with that.
Personally, I'm more optimistic. Science and technology will help us keep ahead of the curve. But yes, it is a gamble, but one that has worked so far.
Or am I dreaming?
Would make her family life a bit difficult, of course, if her husband holds his seat!
Then, once that is accomplished and we see how it works, the rest of us can start to plan to take back our regional identities and break free from the overbearing centrism of Wessex/London. Once you pop, you can't stop
http://www.conservativehome.com/highlights/2014/09/if-carswell-still-loves-the-conservatives-why-did-he-leave-the-party.html
Not convinced that noise is the big factor we think - I know a number of people near airports - they've either got used to it or they don't much care: that's why they moved there, to get a lower price than the same property would be in a quieter place.
On topic, I've been arguing here for about a year that the Conservative hopes must now be based primarily on one-off events, since the underlying position is really not good for them. The Indyref is the main one left. Clacton (which I expect to be a UKIP win, but that as huge as Survation's poll) will be important for morale, but isn't registering directly outside the political sphere. I doubt if many people in my patch know where it is, or care how they vote. The main effect will be indirect - if the media message is "UKIP doing well and can win" it will frustrate efforts by the other parties to squeeze them, probably all the way to May.
It's a repetitive point to make but this need to continually spend enormous sums on new infrastructure is fuelled by unwanted immigration.
"It is quite possible to think of adequate surface transport being possible without oil"
Go on then. Shipping alone requires massive amounts of oil.
Oil will not run out for a long time. What will happen is that it, along with other resources, will cost more to extract. Add this to an increasing demand from what we used to think of as the "third world" and you are on the path to an economic crash that will make the present one feel like a small sneeze.
There is of course the "usual" remedy for this type of situation, but as it will probably involve large mushroom clouds, it is probably best avoided.
Please withdraw and apologise.
These are the last questions we should be asking, as we have no idea what the requirements for economic airships, spacecraft and ramjets would be, *if* they come along. We can guess, but any technology change that makes them economic would probably alter those guesses.
It's like asking Brunel to take into account potential horseless carriages when he built the GWR.
As an example, the UK is in the wrong position for most orbital spaceflight. We could do economic polar flights, but we would need to launch from the north of Scotland to get most bang for our buck, and launch eastwards (from memory). Worse, you need to ensure that rocket debris (e.g. used stages) will not drop on another country (esc. the Russians). This is why France built their spaceport in a different country on the equator.
Any technology making orbital or transport sub-orbital flights economic (e.g. Reaction Engines and Skylon) would be so different from existing technology as to make those requirements potentially void.
Fog may indeed be a problem. But Heathrow gets fogged in as well, and the lack of excess capacity causes much greater problems (planes in fog have increased intervals, and as Heathrow runs at near 100% capacity it cannot cope). A hub airport would have that excess capacity.
The point I was making with the stats is that there can be no complaints if the English swing it in favour of no on the 18th.
Personally, I'm hoping for a yes vote, it would be very funny.
And with Labour unable to win in May 2015 without its Scotty MPs.
A YES vote whilst emotionally painful will be in the long term interests of England. The party that is most swift to chop off Scotland and any financial outgoings to them will prosper at the GE.
" Just wondering if the events of yesterday regarding our nauseating Speaker have had any effect on the odds on him going?"
Reading this rather dry account it doesn't strike me that he did much wrong unless your got the distorted account from the Mail?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29011919
On a slightly different note, it does make you think whether Europe is really in such a mess, when airports in UK, Germany and Netherlands are having to look at expansion to deal with numbers. The number of visitors to Europe for business and pleasure seems to increase every year. Airport expansion and making it easier for people outside of Europe to come here to spend their money must surely be a priority.
"the usual remedy for this situation is for entrepreneurs to seek opportunities to satisfy the demand profitably"
You live in the La La land of unlimited resources?, lucky you, the rest of us live on a small blue planet that we used to think was limitless.
Historical Pics (@HistoricalPics)
02/09/2014 09:40
This is great from Warner Bros pic.twitter.com/hO1Auhz5fA
Alistair Carmichael is only 49 years old, is in good health, is a cabinet minister, and has a rock solid majority. I have never seen or heard anything that even gives the slightest hint that he would consider retiring.
In fact, last week he is on record as saying the exact opposite: that he intends to remain active in politics irrespective of whether the result is Yes or No.
Swinson is a dead duck. Her career was over the moment the rose garden occured.
"Home Office worker investigating Rotherham child abuse 'had data stolen'
Local council took data from office, accused me of insensitivity and tried to sack me, researcher claims on Panorama"
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/01/home-office-rotherham-child-abuse-research-stolen-claim-panorama
didn't think you were a Bluenose Divvie, you'll be telling us you're polishing your bowler for the march in Edinburgh next :-)
It will be 'Fine, on your way then'......
At the end of the day, the YES camp and supporters will be more motivated to vote on the day.
NO needs a much bigger lead going into the final part of campaigning.
In fact, my perfect game scenario is that we see zero Yes Ahead polls and then give No a complete thumping in the GOTV operation on Thursday 18 September.
I'd love to see Kellner and Co making up their excuses in retrospect!
However there should be no favours nor golden goodbyes to the Republic of Scotland - and swift moves to protect our economy now that we will have a neighbour using our currency in a dollarisation scenario.
As long as they're not miles out, then polling, especially of this nature is not exact.
Either way, common sense and David Cameron do not belong in the same sentence. Salmond played him well. The fool actually thought he'd got one up on Salmond! It beggars belief.
Otherwise agree that if Swinson fights he current seat she’s going to be out. Pity, because she comes across well.
LD’s might recover after the departure of Clegg, though.
I don't expect energy to run out except in the case of "entropy" which will take an unimaginable amount of time, Even the case of oil, some will remain, but it's rarity will increase the price, which the world could cope with, except that fuel is only a small part of the petrochemical output.
As an example. The worlds agricultural output relies heavily on the industry for fertilizer,and as it is becoming harder to extract, we need more of it to keep up food production.
Your dream of capitalism alone having the answer is asinine, the market is driven by profit, and profit has no consciousness with which to see the direction it takes.
The "state" is supposed to guide it, but in our topsy turvy world, it leads the state.
(not that the "state" is much better, but it should be in theory if not in practice)
This goes way beyond a general election, this is the core of everyone in the UKs identity,
Today's YouGov:
Absolutely Certain to Vote:
Yes: 88
No: 91
I shall be heartily cheering on the OO in their efforts to promote the positive case for the Union.
ps I know Yes Rangers supporters & No Celtic supporters, I wouldn't dream of telling either that they aren't 'true' to their respective teams.
How is that compatible with Ruth Davidson's "line in the sand"? Or bampots like Foulkes? The long, long list of idiots within the Unionist ranks, both Con and Lab, would have made your proposition utterly impossible. The No camp would have fatally fractured.
What is less often noted is that such a decision would also send shockwaves through the whole of the European Union. Of course Scotland per se is negligibly small in the overall European scheme, but the psychological impact of the UK breaking up, the possible implications for the EU referendum, and the boost which it would give to other separatist movements around Europe would be immense.
If you have investments it might be prudent to review them to see how Salmond-proof they are.
Early thoughts on Monza: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/italy-early-thoughts.html
Includes 3 bets I've made (NB not tips, due to being too early).
Devo-Max changes Westminster hugely, and that needs to be considered.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4193751.ece
Scottish GDP: around $245bn, including oil and gas.
EU GDP: around $18 trillion.
Like I said, negligibly small.