@Patrick - I think that is pretty much the only possible plan. Obviously it would need a stage 4b or 5b where they gradually move towards pegging the Groat to the Euro, probably informally initially and then in formal ERM, before finally converting all bank balances and creditor/debtor balances to Euros.
They could of course, shock horror, just tell barefaced lies to the EU. And then create 5 unpassable tests to join the Euro and stay forever in the waiting room with zero actual intention of progressing beyond that point. And keep the Groat all the way to the end of the rainbow.
I think it is pretty clear that Eck's plan is a dollarised pound for a few years until Scotland joins he Euro in return for EU membership.
Would Scotland still be able to have their own notes in a dollarised pound?
I appears that they wouldn't. Panama is not entitled to print paper money and uses US printed US dollars. This suggests that under sterlingisation Scotland would have to use notes printed by the Bank of England.
It has been suggested on here that the reverse of those notes could feature historic characters such as Margaret Thatcher and Edward Longshanks ;-)
They do use their own currency internally though, 1 balboa = 1 dollar. Coins I believe.
Betting worries - Existential threats to Lab overall/Tory seat hedged positions. More likely to pay out to Union Divvie (Yes > 50) rather than James Bond (Yes < 43)
The No Campaign summed up in 1 picture twitter.com/JamesMcLeary/status/507378637092315136/photo/1
The Yes campaign is summed up by the idiocy of that cartoon. Project fib indeed!
But zoonies like you applaud the carcitures of Alex Salmond etc all the time as being great.
I think Alex Salmond is a pompous, blustering windbag who would tell any fib to pull the wool over the eyes of Scottish voters in order to win the vote.
Personally I think you are an insular Little Englander who is unable to educate himself on the topic and just resorts to insulting Alex Salmond rather than address the topic. You typify the unionist in that you have no interest in Scotland and perfectly show why we are where we are today.
Its a bit like the way you insult everybody who questions Yes whilst gladly supporting Salmond who out-rightly refuses to educate the Scottish electorate about his currency proposals. Talk about insular! ;-)
You stupid thick turnip do you ever read posts. I do not support Alex Salmond I support YES. For thick stupid cretins like you, there is a very big difference there.
If you don't support Alex Salmond, do you support the reasons he's giving for a YES vote? If not, then he is indeed the leader of the Big Fib.
Edit: (I'll take the thick turnip bit as read, thanks)
No need as an intelligent post. I do support the reason why we should have independence. Decisions on Scotland should be taken in Scotland by Scottish citizens not by people in London. There will be lots of negotiations and other things that need sorted out etc but does not change the basic premise of self determination.
If the SNP had advanced a case along those lines - instead of their preposterous "don't frighten the horses" strategy I'd have a lot more sympathy for it.
As it is, it's going to end in tears, whatever the result, because the SNP did not trust the courage of the people of Scotland.
Mr. Away, I quite agree. It's unfair to not say anything about it, only for a Yes win to then lead to the refusal of a currency union. Scottish voters have to go into the polling booth with their eyes open.
Then perhaps we might have made the point with less anger and more concern. There are only two outcomes, in one we have to find the way forward apart without damaging ourselves, in the other we have to live together as one. It's not like we can just turn round after Sept 29 and say 'sorry bout all the veiled threats and all'
But maybe that's just me
considering the yes campaign is a 'threat' to leave us then its not going to be all sweetness and light is it? .What is the rest of the Uk supposed to do? beg for the Scots to stay but also say if you don't we still want to share everything that you want to share as well?
Its up to the scots to leave if they want, its up to the rest of the UK to look after itself after such a vote(which includes not sharing a currency with a foreign country). The simplest way to ensure a currency union is to vote no.
Do divorced couples still have joint bank accounts?
BTW its not a veiled threat its likely to be a hard fact . Scotland leaves the UK it will not share a currency with the UK. This needs pointing out before the vote, it would be unfair to not do so.
I understand the reasons and need for things to be said, but it's like anything else in life, we've all just got yo get on with it after Sept 19 regardless. I'd have liked to have heard more positive encouragement to stay alongside the uncomfortable facts. That's what has been missing for me.
Its not up to the rest of the UK to provide the positive encouragement beyond a polite 'we don't want you to leave' . Its up to the people of Scotland who want to stay to do it. If ,in a marriage , one partner starts to make noises about leaving do you have to shower them with praise and beg for them to stay? -No. You may point out the consequences and say you do not wish a divorce but the bad feeling to be honest comes when one party says it may want to split (not when the other does not shower praises on the partner that is deciding whether to go or not)
But it's not a marriage, it's a constitutional settlement. Anyway, this argument is circular. What's done is done.
Woolie , they are just too thick. Liek broken records.
The argument about the Elgin/Parthenon Marbles is bizarre.
For those hanging their hats on the legal argument, it's worth noting that their purchase was controversial even at the time they were removed from Greece two hundred years ago, notably at a time when Britain didn't have particular qualms about colonial conquest.
I'm puzzled by the apparent right/left-wing split on this, with right-wing patriots largely wanting to keep the Marbles in Britain, despite the fact that they would be most motivated about retrieving similar British relics if any such had been taken abroad by a militarily dominant colonial power.
Similarly, why are largely left-wing posters so determined to enforce the national ownership of these Marbles by Greece? I thought national borders weren't supposed to be all that important to lefties like me? It's not like there's a descendant of any of the original artists or workmen who is claiming ownership of them - so why should these people wholly unconnected to the Marbles, but who happen to live in the same rough geographical area, have a greater claim to ownership of any other member of the human race?
The modern inhabitants of Greek have no more right to ownership of the Marbles than I do to ownership of stone circles on Dartmoor, near to where I currently reside.
Doubtless a lot of mistakes were made in the past, but I'd rather we put more effort into preventing more mistakes being made now - such as with the tragic loss of artefacts in Iraq and Egypt in recent years - than trying to work out how to untangle distant history.
Mr. Away, I quite agree. It's unfair to not say anything about it, only for a Yes win to then lead to the refusal of a currency union. Scottish voters have to go into the polling booth with their eyes open.
Then perhaps we might have made the point with less anger and more concern. There are only two outcomes, in one we have to find the way forward apart without damaging ourselves, in the other we have to live together as one. It's not like we can just turn round after Sept 29 and say 'sorry bout all the veiled threats and all'
But maybe that's just me
considering the yes campaign is a 'threat' to leave us then its not going to be all sweetness and light is it? .What is the rest of the Uk supposed to do? beg for the Scots to stay but also say if you don't we still want to share everything that you want to share as well?
Its up to the scots to leave if they want, its up to the rest of the UK to look after itself after such a vote(which includes not sharing a currency with a foreign country). The simplest way to ensure a currency union is to vote no.
Do divorced couples still have joint bank accounts?
BTW its not a veiled threat its likely to be a hard fact . Scotland leaves the UK it will not share a currency with the UK. This needs pointing out before the vote, it would be unfair to not do so.
I understand the reasons and need for things to be said, but it's like anything else in life, we've all just got yo get on with it after Sept 19 regardless. I'd have liked to have heard more positive encouragement to stay alongside the uncomfortable facts. That's what has been missing for me.
Its not up to the rest of the UK to provide the positive encouragement beyond a polite 'we don't want you to leave' . Its up to the people of Scotland who want to stay to do it. If ,in a marriage , one partner starts to make noises about leaving do you have to shower them with praise and beg for them to stay? -No. You may point out the consequences and say you do not wish a divorce but the bad feeling to be honest comes when one party says it may want to split (not when the other does not shower praises on the partner that is deciding whether to go or not)
But it's not a marriage, it's a constitutional settlement. Anyway, this argument is circular. What's done is done.
Woolie , they are just too thick. Liek broken records.
BTW, note Nick Palmer's admission below: legal ownership does not, in his mind, matter.
That, I fear, is a distortion of what I said. I don't think legal ownership should be used as an excuse if in reality you're sitting on someone else's goods. I'm not suggesting that the Greeks should seize the marbles through an extension of the European Arrest Warrant, merely that we should give them back because it's the right thing to do.
But if they were legally purchased, then they are not the original person's goods.
The legal purchase was from Elgin's Estate to the British Museum.
Elgin's acquisition was based on a letter (it was more than that, closer to a warrant, but I forget the precise Turkish term) from the Sultan permitting him to remove "some" marbles from Athens as a gift.
So misappropriated in English
The Sultan was head of state at the time and owned the site, so he was entitled to give it to whoever he liked
But we know the reality
That the Sultan was the head of state and that he was entitled to give it to whichever Scotsman he liked?
I think it is pretty clear that Eck's plan is a dollarised pound for a few years until Scotland joins he Euro in return for EU membership.
Would Scotland still be able to have their own notes in a dollarised pound?
They could print them for internal use I suppose - but they wouldn't be legal tender in rUk.
I doubt that the current backing arrangements could be made to apply to a foreign country.
In the event of a YES vote I doubt any trader south of the border will accept Scottish notes come the 19th. I expect to see NO SCOTTISH NOTES ACCEPTED notices on shops, supermarkets, etc.
Although they are currently legal money, they have never been legal tender.
Notes issued by the Scottish banks have to be backed by Bank of England notes held by the issuing bank. The Bank of England issues special notes with denominations of one million pounds ("Giants") and one hundred million pounds ("Titans") for internal use by the other banks.
If the Scottish banks broke the rules under the current arrangements, then it would be a national problem. If they broke the rules post independence, then it would become an international problem; hence I believe the backing arrangements will be cancelled and Scotland will have to use B of E printed notes.
The turnip has spoken , Mark Carney will be changing his plans as we speak.
Alex Salmond's vision for a fairer Scotland is a con, says Ed Miliband Labout leader dismisses SNP claims that only a yes vote in independence referendum will ensure Tories are ousted
Here is a comment that a senior council member passed by me. Salmond needs to win not 1 but 2 votes. Say the referendum is 51% Yes and Salmond starts trying to negotiate independence. The UK Government go No you dont get to use the pound, EU says you need to use the Euro and it becomes clear that there it is going to be very expensive to set up an independent Scotland. In May we have a new Scottish election and the SNP get thrown out. Labour then suggests a new referendum based on what the reality would be which is rejected. This is within the 1 year before Scotland becomes independent.
BTW, note Nick Palmer's admission below: legal ownership does not, in his mind, matter.
That, I fear, is a distortion of what I said. I don't think legal ownership should be used as an excuse if in reality you're sitting on someone else's goods. I'm not suggesting that the Greeks should seize the marbles through an extension of the European Arrest Warrant, merely that we should give them back because it's the right thing to do.
But if they were legally purchased, then they are not the original person's goods.
The legal purchase was from Elgin's Estate to the British Museum.
Elgin's acquisition was based on a letter (it was more than that, closer to a warrant, but I forget the precise Turkish term) from the Sultan permitting him to remove "some" marbles from Athens as a gift.
Bears out Mike's comment on the weird absence of people paying for daily indyref polls at this stage. Presumably someone paid Panelbase for this - hard to imagine that they reflected on what would be most interesting this week and decided it was fracking in national parks...
Here is a comment that a senior council member passed by me. Salmond needs to win not 1 but 2 votes. Say the referendum is 51% Yes and Salmond starts trying to negotiate independence. The UK Government go No you dont get to use the pound, EU says you need to use the Euro and it becomes clear that there it is going to be very expensive to set up an independent Scotland. In May we have a new Scottish election and the SNP get thrown out. Labour then suggests a new referendum based on what the reality would be which is rejected. This is within the 1 year before Scotland becomes independent.
This, bravely, assumes that the SNP get their own way on the timetable.
Since they are not going to get their own way on trivialities like currency or the EU, why should the timetable be any different?
The issue with this is that Cameron has no reason to be reasonable if Salmond wins but on the opposite will take the gloves off. RBS will move HQ, no cooperation etc. The Scottish economy will take a big hit.
I have been watching a similar but less traumatic negotiation between Switzerland and the EU over the last year. As soon as the Swiss voted to leave parts of the EU the gloves came off. They got thrown off all sorts of institutions which impacted them more than they realised. The Swiss economy is now in recession and trade with EU is one big reason. The other impact is that the big MNC HQs are slowly moving to Ireland and the UK.
Must admit to being rather relieved to find an interesting discussion taking place on the Elgin Marbles amongst the usual rhetoric for a ‘Scottish thread’ ; )
Thought I’d add my 2p on the subject with the little known story of a Scottish sculpture called John Henning, who with the permission of Lord Elgin, created miniature copies of the Parthenon friezes which were eagerly collected by 'gentlemen' and the Prince Regent, long before they found a home in the BM.
Admission, I researched his fascinating story several years ago, when I acquired a set of his work at auction. - for those interested, the wiki link is below.
Here is a comment that a senior council member passed by me. Salmond needs to win not 1 but 2 votes. Say the referendum is 51% Yes and Salmond starts trying to negotiate independence. The UK Government go No you dont get to use the pound, EU says you need to use the Euro and it becomes clear that there it is going to be very expensive to set up an independent Scotland. In May we have a new Scottish election and the SNP get thrown out. Labour then suggests a new referendum based on what the reality would be which is rejected. This is within the 1 year before Scotland becomes independent.
The idea that independence negotiations can be concluded in time for it to be enacted in March 2016 strikes me as being fanciful. Unless rUK decides to play hardball, in which case the could probably be sorted out in a month tops. That is unlikely.
What happens if the Scottish people don't like they deal they can get? Well the answer would seem to be from both sides, tough, live with it. Wasn't there, years ago a plan, whereby there would be two votes, the first on the principle and the second, after negotiations, on the actual terms? That would also present its difficulties but surely better than the scenario you present.
Here is a comment that a senior council member passed by me. Salmond needs to win not 1 but 2 votes. Say the referendum is 51% Yes and Salmond starts trying to negotiate independence. The UK Government go No you dont get to use the pound, EU says you need to use the Euro and it becomes clear that there it is going to be very expensive to set up an independent Scotland. In May we have a new Scottish election and the SNP get thrown out. Labour then suggests a new referendum based on what the reality would be which is rejected. This is within the 1 year before Scotland becomes independent.
The idea that independence negotiations can be concluded in time for it to be enacted in March 2016 strikes me as being fanciful. Unless rUK decides to play hardball, in which case the could probably be sorted out in a month tops. That is unlikely.
What happens if the Scottish people don't like they deal they can get? Well the answer would seem to be from both sides, tough, live with it. Wasn't there, years ago a plan, whereby there would be two votes, the first on the principle and the second, after negotiations, on the actual terms? That would also present its difficulties but surely better than the scenario you present.
I don't think they'll be any second vote. September 18th is it.
Here is a comment that a senior council member passed by me. Salmond needs to win not 1 but 2 votes. Say the referendum is 51% Yes and Salmond starts trying to negotiate independence. The UK Government go No you dont get to use the pound, EU says you need to use the Euro and it becomes clear that there it is going to be very expensive to set up an independent Scotland. In May we have a new Scottish election and the SNP get thrown out. Labour then suggests a new referendum based on what the reality would be which is rejected. This is within the 1 year before Scotland becomes independent.
What happens if the Scottish people don't like they deal they can get? Well the answer would seem to be from both sides, tough, live with it.
"Ooh, we've changed our minds, can we stay after all?"
Mr. Llama, to be fair, London's crammed with all sorts of foreign chaps, not just Frenchies.
Mr. Evershed, I'm sure our Scottish friends would not do such a thing nowadays (especially with rumours of enormo-haddock located in various lochs...).
It's not like there's a descendant of any of the original artists or workmen who is claiming ownership of them - so why should these people wholly unconnected to the Marbles, but who happen to live in the same rough geographical area, have a greater claim to ownership of any other member of the human race?
The modern inhabitants of Greek have no more right to ownership of the Marbles than I do to ownership of stone circles on Dartmoor, near to where I currently reside.
"happen to live in the same rough geographical area" is WHOLLY unproven, and is a theory advanced by a nutter called Fallmerayer who died in 1861. The jury is absolutely out pending decent DNA evidence, but the tendency of studies of other areas by Cavalli-Sforza and so on is to suggest that indigenous populations are far more tenacious and undisplaceable than we used to think.
Not that I really give a monkey's about the marbles, they are too fragmentary to do much for me aesthetically and easily copied with 100% fidelity.
The argument about the Elgin/Parthenon Marbles is bizarre.
For those hanging their hats on the legal argument, it's worth noting that their purchase was controversial even at the time they were removed from Greece two hundred years ago, notably at a time when Britain didn't have particular qualms about colonial conquest.
I'm puzzled by the apparent right/left-wing split on this, with right-wing patriots largely wanting to keep the Marbles in Britain, despite the fact that they would be most motivated about retrieving similar British relics if any such had been taken abroad by a militarily dominant colonial power.
Similarly, why are largely left-wing posters so determined to enforce the national ownership of these Marbles by Greece? I thought national borders weren't supposed to be all that important to lefties like me? It's not like there's a descendant of any of the original artists or workmen who is claiming ownership of them - so why should these people wholly unconnected to the Marbles, but who happen to live in the same rough geographical area, have a greater claim to ownership of any other member of the human race?
The modern inhabitants of Greek have no more right to ownership of the Marbles than I do to ownership of stone circles on Dartmoor, near to where I currently reside.
Doubtless a lot of mistakes were made in the past, but I'd rather we put more effort into preventing more mistakes being made now - such as with the tragic loss of artefacts in Iraq and Egypt in recent years - than trying to work out how to untangle distant history.
An excellent post. It seems the situation has somewhat been clarified by the various international treaties that govern looting such as the 1907 Hague Convention.
I'm not sure I'm a 'right wing patriot', but I have been arguing that side. If relics were taken from Britain in history, then I'm not too fussed about getting them back if they're being well cared for. Then again, there probably are not many objects in that category.
I would argue that objects looted in modern times (such as Nazi war art) ought to be returned where the original owners or their descendants can be adequately determined. Objects predating these treaties are a different matter, and legality is much more complex, especially when things were often down by handshakes between gentlemen.
Even nowadays legality can be vexing: BR locomotive 70013 Oliver Cromwell was saved by the nation and given on 'permanent loan' to a museum. When the national collection wanted it back, the museum complained. How 'permanent' should a 'permanent loan' be considered?
The No Campaign summed up in 1 picture twitter.com/JamesMcLeary/status/507378637092315136/photo/1
The Yes campaign is summed up by the idiocy of that cartoon. Project fib indeed!
But zoonies like you applaud the carcitures of Alex Salmond etc all the time as being great.
I think Alex Salmond is a pompous, blustering windbag who would tell any fib to pull the wool over the eyes of Scottish voters in order to win the vote.
Personally I think you are an insular Little Englander who is unable to educate himself on the topic and just resorts to insulting Alex Salmond rather than address the topic. You typify the unionist in that you have no interest in Scotland and perfectly show why we are where we are today.
Its a bit like the way you insult everybody who questions Yes whilst gladly supporting Salmond who out-rightly refuses to educate the Scottish electorate about his currency proposals. Talk about insular! ;-)
You stupid thick turnip do you ever read posts. I do not support Alex Salmond I support YES. For thick stupid cretins like you, there is a very big difference there.
If you don't support Alex Salmond, do you support the reasons he's giving for a YES vote? If not, then he is indeed the leader of the Big Fib.
Edit: (I'll take the thick turnip bit as read, thanks)
No need as an intelligent post. I do support the reason why we should have independence. Decisions on Scotland should be taken in Scotland by Scottish citizens not by people in London. There will be lots of negotiations and other things that need sorted out etc but does not change the basic premise of self determination.
Malcolm - but I'm a dyed in the wool, lifelong, Tory Unionist with 25% Scots' genes. I may not be a thick turnip but can I at least have the honour of being a stupid, misguided cretin?
It's not like there's a descendant of any of the original artists or workmen who is claiming ownership of them - so why should these people wholly unconnected to the Marbles, but who happen to live in the same rough geographical area, have a greater claim to ownership of any other member of the human race?
The modern inhabitants of Greek have no more right to ownership of the Marbles than I do to ownership of stone circles on Dartmoor, near to where I currently reside.
"happen to live in the same rough geographical area" is WHOLLY unproven, and is a theory advanced by a nutter called Fallmerayer who died in 1861. The jury is absolutely out pending decent DNA evidence, but the tendency of studies of other areas by Cavalli-Sforza and so on is to suggest that indigenous populations are far more tenacious and undisplaceable than we used to think.
Not that I really give a monkey's about the marbles, they are too fragmentary to do much for me aesthetically and easily copied with 100% fidelity.
Here is a comment that a senior council member passed by me. Salmond needs to win not 1 but 2 votes. Say the referendum is 51% Yes and Salmond starts trying to negotiate independence. The UK Government go No you dont get to use the pound, EU says you need to use the Euro and it becomes clear that there it is going to be very expensive to set up an independent Scotland. In May we have a new Scottish election and the SNP get thrown out. Labour then suggests a new referendum based on what the reality would be which is rejected. This is within the 1 year before Scotland becomes independent.
The idea that independence negotiations can be concluded in time for it to be enacted in March 2016 strikes me as being fanciful. Unless rUK decides to play hardball, in which case the could probably be sorted out in a month tops. That is unlikely.
What happens if the Scottish people don't like they deal they can get? Well the answer would seem to be from both sides, tough, live with it. Wasn't there, years ago a plan, whereby there would be two votes, the first on the principle and the second, after negotiations, on the actual terms? That would also present its difficulties but surely better than the scenario you present.
I don't think they'll be any second vote. September 18th is it.
I don't think there will be either but I was responding to Mr. HamiltonAce's which put forward the possibility that the Scots might not like the deal they actually get and what would happen then? Could be the biggest case of buyers remorse since Henry VIII clapped eyes on Anne of Cleeves.
Here is a comment that a senior council member passed by me. Salmond needs to win not 1 but 2 votes. Say the referendum is 51% Yes and Salmond starts trying to negotiate independence. The UK Government go No you dont get to use the pound, EU says you need to use the Euro and it becomes clear that there it is going to be very expensive to set up an independent Scotland. In May we have a new Scottish election and the SNP get thrown out. Labour then suggests a new referendum based on what the reality would be which is rejected. This is within the 1 year before Scotland becomes independent.
What happens if the Scottish people don't like they deal they can get? Well the answer would seem to be from both sides, tough, live with it. Wasn't there, years ago a plan, whereby there would be two votes, the first on the principle and the second, after negotiations, on the actual terms? That would also present its difficulties but surely better than the scenario you present.
The potential pitfalls around currency, defence, EU, financial services, debt share, etc, etc have been flagged ad nauseam. The Scots are about to vote with eyes wide open. True independence will be painful. Very painful. We're about to find out if they think it's worth it nonetheless.
and it becomes clear that there it is going to be very expensive to set up an independent Scotland.
That's always been obvious to the more intelligent. An independent Defence force would have massive set up costs for example.
The price of energy would likely rise too - no more subsidised power from the south. Easy to disconnect the two grids as well.
Some people are terribly badly informed. The reality is that:
"Both Scotland and Wales are net exporters of electricity, with England importing electricity from both countries and from continental Europe"
England's electricity is much more likely to rise in price than Scotland's, following independence. It's not like Scotland won't have any cards to play in the Independence negotiations.
and it becomes clear that there it is going to be very expensive to set up an independent Scotland.
That's always been obvious to the more intelligent. An independent Defence force would have massive set up costs for example.
The price of energy would likely rise too - no more subsidised power from the south. Easy to disconnect the two grids as well.
Some people are terribly badly informed. The reality is that:
"Both Scotland and Wales are net exporters of electricity, with England importing electricity from both countries and from continental Europe"
England's electricity is much more likely to rise in price than Scotland's, following independence. It's not like Scotland won't have any cards to play in the Independence negotiations.
Net exporters, yes, but how does the unit cost compare to that of power generated in England.
If the independence deal is looking bad for the Scots post the independence vote, then Labour might takeover as the Scottish Government before it is implemented.
Then they could put the terms of independence to a referendum. The referendum question could be to accept the independence terms or to stay in the UK.
It would be like referendums about EU membership and terms. Countries keep being asked to vote until they produce the answer the establishment seeks.
and it becomes clear that there it is going to be very expensive to set up an independent Scotland.
That's always been obvious to the more intelligent. An independent Defence force would have massive set up costs for example.
The price of energy would likely rise too - no more subsidised power from the south. Easy to disconnect the two grids as well.
Would the Scottish SAS be going in to rescue this hostage chap ? After the Scottish Mi6 and military intelligence had found his location via their listening post at Scottish GCHQ ?
and it becomes clear that there it is going to be very expensive to set up an independent Scotland.
That's always been obvious to the more intelligent. An independent Defence force would have massive set up costs for example.
The price of energy would likely rise too - no more subsidised power from the south. Easy to disconnect the two grids as well.
Would the Scottish SAS be going in to rescue this hostage chap ? After the Scottish Mi6 and military intelligence had found his location via their listening post at Scottish GCHQ ?
Who needs a Scottish SAS, they'll have Black Watch, they are has hard as nails.
and it becomes clear that there it is going to be very expensive to set up an independent Scotland.
That's always been obvious to the more intelligent. An independent Defence force would have massive set up costs for example.
The price of energy would likely rise too - no more subsidised power from the south. Easy to disconnect the two grids as well.
Some people are terribly badly informed. The reality is that:
"Both Scotland and Wales are net exporters of electricity, with England importing electricity from both countries and from continental Europe"
England's electricity is much more likely to rise in price than Scotland's, following independence. It's not like Scotland won't have any cards to play in the Independence negotiations.
Net exporters, yes, but how does the unit cost compare to that of power generated in England.
In your previous post you advocated cutting off the grid between England and Scotland, an action that would [well, I exaggerate slightly, the flow is roughly 3% of England's generation, so England would probably manage] lead to the collapse of electricity supply in England.
You did this because you were hilariously badly informed about the realities of the electricity market, so why don't you go and find out about the differences in unit costs and find out what the true answer is rather than just making things up that might or might not be true?
BTW, note Nick Palmer's admission below: legal ownership does not, in his mind, matter.
That, I fear, is a distortion of what I said. I don't think legal ownership should be used as an excuse if in reality you're sitting on someone else's goods. I'm not suggesting that the Greeks should seize the marbles through an extension of the European Arrest Warrant, merely that we should give them back because it's the right thing to do.
But if they were legally purchased, then they are not the original person's goods.
The legal purchase was from Elgin's Estate to the British Museum.
Elgin's acquisition was based on a letter (it was more than that, closer to a warrant, but I forget the precise Turkish term) from the Sultan permitting him to remove "some" marbles from Athens as a gift.
Firman, is the term you want maybe?
That the one - I looked it up afterwards, but couldn't be bothered to post.
Having read the firman though (or at least the English translation of the Italian translation that is all that exists) most of it is about access to the site and the drawing of the marbles, with the throw away line about "no one will get in their way if they decide to remove any stones from the site"
It looks like Elgin aggressively interpreted his mandate!
"Mr. Llama, to be fair, London's crammed with all sorts of foreign chaps, not just Frenchies"
Very true, you should visit it sometime. The boys on here would I am sure rally round to show you a good time.
By the way I was up your way yesterday, just a flying visit up in the morning back the afternoon. I do like Leeds, it has very many fine buildings, nice people and a nice atmosphere, and one of the worst and most confusing one-way systems anywhere on the planet.
How anyone not bred to it is supposed to navigate their way around is beyond me and you seem to have a special system installed that cuts out satellite signals just as a visitor approaches a junction leaving him totally at a loss if he is using a GPS. In trying to get to a building in the city centre and thence to a building in Headingly and thence back out to the M1, I used as much bad language as should last an ordinary Christian gentleman his whole life, if he is careful.
Still hope to be back in three weeks or so when I'll have more time and maybe we could meet. There is much to discuss on the diplomacy front of you can survive that long.
and it becomes clear that there it is going to be very expensive to set up an independent Scotland.
That's always been obvious to the more intelligent. An independent Defence force would have massive set up costs for example.
The price of energy would likely rise too - no more subsidised power from the south. Easy to disconnect the two grids as well.
Would the Scottish SAS be going in to rescue this hostage chap ? After the Scottish Mi6 and military intelligence had found his location via their listening post at Scottish GCHQ ?
They would just have to follow the sound of bagpipes.
and it becomes clear that there it is going to be very expensive to set up an independent Scotland.
That's always been obvious to the more intelligent. An independent Defence force would have massive set up costs for example.
The price of energy would likely rise too - no more subsidised power from the south. Easy to disconnect the two grids as well.
Would the Scottish SAS be going in to rescue this hostage chap ? After the Scottish Mi6 and military intelligence had found his location via their listening post at Scottish GCHQ ?
Recruiting will be fun - "Join the Scottish Army, and see the, well, err, Scotland"
"No thanks, I'll go south, and see the world with the rUK"
Has HMG been utterly short sighted on the prospect of Scottish Independence ?
bitthick on the Guardian comments nails it:
They've had TWO YEARS to make contingency plans for the outcome of the referendum -- but the official HMG (and even MOD) line is "we are not making plans for Scottish independence because it isn't going to happen." any sane government would have had it sorted out in principle a year ago. The decision not to was almost the first N0 PRE-NEGOTIATION! bit of loudhailer pre-negotiating they did. Bet they wished they'd quietly sat down at the table like adults and hashed out some in-principle plans.
This is why I think Cameron might struggle to survive. If chaos immediately arrives then I think the complete absence of planning will not be forgiven. As I understand it the government has purposefully stopped the civil service from taking contingency steps. You can see the headlines 'Britain prepared for potential nuclear fallout but not Scottish independence'
and it becomes clear that there it is going to be very expensive to set up an independent Scotland.
That's always been obvious to the more intelligent. An independent Defence force would have massive set up costs for example.
The price of energy would likely rise too - no more subsidised power from the south. Easy to disconnect the two grids as well.
Some people are terribly badly informed. The reality is that:
"Both Scotland and Wales are net exporters of electricity, with England importing electricity from both countries and from continental Europe"
England's electricity is much more likely to rise in price than Scotland's, following independence. It's not like Scotland won't have any cards to play in the Independence negotiations.
Net exporters, yes, but how does the unit cost compare to that of power generated in England.
In your previous post you advocated cutting off the grid between England and Scotland, an action that would lead to the collapse of electricity supply in England.
You did this because you were hilariously badly informed about the realities of the electricity market, so why don't you go and find out about the differences in unit costs and find out what the true answer is rather than just making things up that might or might not be true?
Private Eye ran an interesting article on this very topic a few weeks ago; why not find, and read it yourself and broaden your own knowledge?
Here is a comment that a senior council member passed by me. Salmond needs to win not 1 but 2 votes. Say the referendum is 51% Yes and Salmond starts trying to negotiate independence. The UK Government go No you dont get to use the pound, EU says you need to use the Euro and it becomes clear that there it is going to be very expensive to set up an independent Scotland. In May we have a new Scottish election and the SNP get thrown out. Labour then suggests a new referendum based on what the reality would be which is rejected. This is within the 1 year before Scotland becomes independent.
The idea that independence negotiations can be concluded in time for it to be enacted in March 2016 strikes me as being fanciful. Unless rUK decides to play hardball, in which case the could probably be sorted out in a month tops. That is unlikely.
What happens if the Scottish people don't like they deal they can get? Well the answer would seem to be from both sides, tough, live with it. Wasn't there, years ago a plan, whereby there would be two votes, the first on the principle and the second, after negotiations, on the actual terms? That would also present its difficulties but surely better than the scenario you present.
I don't think they'll be any second vote. September 18th is it.
I don't think there will be either but I was responding to Mr. HamiltonAce's which put forward the possibility that the Scots might not like the deal they actually get and what would happen then? Could be the biggest case of buyers remorse since Henry VIII clapped eyes on Anne of Cleeves.
So say Labour wins the next Scottish election hands down as Salmond is shown to be unable to deliver. Will they proceed with Salmond's plan which would make them lose potentially England for ever and they are passionately opposed to? I have been watching Switzerland as I said where everyone said well this is it. The reality is that what they have voted for is no longer what they will get. I am sure this could lead to a massive re-organisation of the way the UK operates but to say that the vote on Sept 19th is it, is pie in the sky.
If you believe in a Yes vote then you could also look at taking side bets on the UK election. The impact will be large. My gut feeling is that Labour and the Conservatives will go up and UKIP will be side lined.
Mr. Llama, ah yes, the one-way system. It is rather awful. The buildings are, as you suggested, rather nice, although they buggered up the entry to the Victoria Quarter by getting rid of the golden lettering and black iron to replace it with soulless glass and white steel (it was that way the last time I saw it, which was some years ago).
Diplomacy does look unpromising, but I seem to recall you said much the same about Russia [admittedly, I lost that game but had a decent run].
This article has a very different take on the oranigram than the FT did yesterday. But Energy has to be a good portfolio for the UK commissioner in the circumstances. They would never get the City regulation job and internal markets without that element isnt so attractive. Not having appointed a woman or someone high profile (or having backed Juncker!) then Energy is a good outcome (it's an important job).
Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) 04/09/2014 10:49 "To better understand the enemy staff at CCHQ have been ordered to read Revolt on the Right" bit.ly/1pMnd80
David Lammy isn't the first to throw his hat into the ring for the 2016 mayoral race. Transport journalist Christian Wolmar's been campaigning to be Labour's candidate for a couple of years now.
Recruiting will be fun - "Join the Scottish Army, and see the, well, err, Scotland"
"No thanks, I'll go south, and see the world with the rUK"
The Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 extends to Scotland and will still apply there after independence. That will mean that without a licence from Her Majesty in right of Scotland, any person who enlists in the army of a foreign state (such as the successor United Kingdom) at war with a state which is at peace with Scotland, or leaves Scotland with such an intent, will be guilty of an offence, and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. That would mean no Scot would have been able to join Blair's crusade if Scotland had remained at peace with Iraq.
and it becomes clear that there it is going to be very expensive to set up an independent Scotland.
That's always been obvious to the more intelligent. An independent Defence force would have massive set up costs for example.
The price of energy would likely rise too - no more subsidised power from the south. Easy to disconnect the two grids as well.
Some people are terribly badly informed. The reality is that:
"Both Scotland and Wales are net exporters of electricity, with England importing electricity from both countries and from continental Europe"
England's electricity is much more likely to rise in price than Scotland's, following independence. It's not like Scotland won't have any cards to play in the Independence negotiations.
Net exporters, yes, but how does the unit cost compare to that of power generated in England.
In your previous post you advocated cutting off the grid between England and Scotland, an action that would lead to the collapse of electricity supply in England.
You did this because you were hilariously badly informed about the realities of the electricity market, so why don't you go and find out about the differences in unit costs and find out what the true answer is rather than just making things up that might or might not be true?
Private Eye ran an interesting article on this very topic a few weeks ago; why not find, and read it yourself and broaden your own knowledge?
I have linked to official government figures and you waffle vaguely about an article in Private Eye.
and it becomes clear that there it is going to be very expensive to set up an independent Scotland.
That's always been obvious to the more intelligent. An independent Defence force would have massive set up costs for example.
The price of energy would likely rise too - no more subsidised power from the south. Easy to disconnect the two grids as well.
Would the Scottish SAS be going in to rescue this hostage chap ? After the Scottish Mi6 and military intelligence had found his location via their listening post at Scottish GCHQ ?
Who needs a Scottish SAS, they'll have Black Watch, they are has hard as nails.
They may have been Mr. Eagles, but of course the Black Watch no longer exist as a separate regiment the name is now carried by a battalion of the Royal Regiment of Scotland - one of Labour's defence cuts.
The trick of turning regiments into battalions of an amalgamated regiment has long been used in the British army to get over the resistance to the amalgamation. It is of course a con and the original Regiment's ethos is allowed to wither on the vine until it is entirely subsumed.
Personally, I'd just abolish the army. We are never going to use them again except in light roles and for that an expended Royal Marines will do the job.
and it becomes clear that there it is going to be very expensive to set up an independent Scotland.
That's always been obvious to the more intelligent. An independent Defence force would have massive set up costs for example.
The price of energy would likely rise too - no more subsidised power from the south. Easy to disconnect the two grids as well.
Would the Scottish SAS be going in to rescue this hostage chap ? After the Scottish Mi6 and military intelligence had found his location via their listening post at Scottish GCHQ ?
Who needs a Scottish SAS, they'll have Black Watch, they are has hard as nails.
They may have been Mr. Eagles, but of course the Black Watch no longer exist as a separate regiment the name is now carried by a battalion of the Royal Regiment of Scotland - one of Labour's defence cuts.
The trick of turning regiments into battalions of an amalgamated regiment has long been used in the British army to get over the resistance to the amalgamation. It is of course a con and the original Regiment's ethos is allowed to wither on the vine until it is entirely subsumed.
Personally, I'd just abolish the army. We are never going to use them again except in light roles and for that an expended Royal Marines will do the job.
Not water soldiers.
I have a weakness for having a massive Airborne/Air Assault Division(s)
Edit: Then again The Paras went 50 years without making combat jump
Here is a comment that a senior council member passed by me. Salmond needs to win not 1 but 2 votes. Say the referendum is 51% Yes and Salmond starts trying to negotiate independence. The UK Government go No you dont get to use the pound, EU says you need to use the Euro and it becomes clear that there it is going to be very expensive to set up an independent Scotland. In May we have a new Scottish election and the SNP get thrown out. Labour then suggests a new referendum based on what the reality would be which is rejected. This is within the 1 year before Scotland becomes independent.
What happens if the Scottish people don't like they deal they can get? Well the answer would seem to be from both sides, tough, live with it.
"Ooh, we've changed our minds, can we stay after all?"
Recruiting will be fun - "Join the Scottish Army, and see the, well, err, Scotland"
"No thanks, I'll go south, and see the world with the rUK"
The Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 extends to Scotland and will still apply there after independence. That will mean that without a licence from Her Majesty in right of Scotland, any person who enlists in the army of a foreign state (such as the successor United Kingdom) at war with a state which is at peace with Scotland, or leaves Scotland with such an intent, will be guilty of an offence, and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. That would mean no Scot would have been able to join Blair's crusade if Scotland had remained at peace with Iraq.
In the circumstances the deserters from the Free State Army who joined the British Army during WW2 did quite well then!
Energy is indeed an important portfolio in the EU Commission. But...is the job about bringing coherence, efficiency and security to EU energy markets or is it about being a watermelon salesman to the detriment of the former?
There was a charming story that my godmother tells. She's from a 17th century settler family in the states and, during the war of 1812 some redcoats burnt their house and walked off with the family silver.
Fast forward to the 1930s and her mother was at a rather grand dinner in a country house in England. She recognised the silver and commented in passing on it. The next morning she woke up to find the canteen of silver, cleaned and polished, outside her bedroom door with a nice note from the hostess thanking her for the loan...
Here is a comment that a senior council member passed by me. Salmond needs to win not 1 but 2 votes. Say the referendum is 51% Yes and Salmond starts trying to negotiate independence. The UK Government go No you dont get to use the pound, EU says you need to use the Euro and it becomes clear that there it is going to be very expensive to set up an independent Scotland. In May we have a new Scottish election and the SNP get thrown out. Labour then suggests a new referendum based on what the reality would be which is rejected. This is within the 1 year before Scotland becomes independent.
What happens if the Scottish people don't like they deal they can get? Well the answer would seem to be from both sides, tough, live with it. Wasn't there, years ago a plan, whereby there would be two votes, the first on the principle and the second, after negotiations, on the actual terms? That would also present its difficulties but surely better than the scenario you present.
The potential pitfalls around currency, defence, EU, financial services, debt share, etc, etc have been flagged ad nauseam. The Scots are about to vote with eyes wide open. True independence will be painful. Very painful. We're about to find out if they think it's worth it nonetheless.
It's even worse than that. If we vote to leave the UK we vote to leave the internal UK market that makes up the bulk of Scotland's income. We can put figures on the likely number made unemployed because Scotland is no longer selling at the same rate to the UK. With some reasonable assumptions, I estimate a post independence unemployment rate of 15%-20%, up from 7% now. People are literally voting themselves out of a job and livelihood. They are so wrapped up in wishful they have no idea what they are voting for.
on Hurstlama's point I can can see Scotland and rUK moving swftly to a complete separation of parliaments and revenues before the next UK election in 2015, but taking their time on constitutional and monetary issues until Scotland gets the go ahead for EU membership. There is a long possibility that a referendum could be put to the Scottish people to stop there - ie with a confederation. I don't think the SNP would do that for ideological reasons, but Labour and allies could campaign on that in the Holyrood election.
Devastating for Cameron if true. He gets spat in the face with Juncker's appointment, and they don't even bother to give him a big job to make up for it. They haven't even decided on who they want as internal markets, but they have to decided to exclude the Brits. To make it worse, one of the big economic appointments goes to France! Clearly the EU just wants to screw us now and Juncker is getting his revenge.
The "we must stay in for influence" argument goes up in smoke if this goes through. Cameron must be fighting hard to overturn this.
If the EU owes nothing to us, isn't it about time we stopped subsidising them? I don't really feel happy paying the salary for a French competition commissioner to further protect the French farmers we subsidise from competition...
Mr. Socrates, the 'we must stay in' argument is as nonsensical as arguing a domestic abuse victim should stay with an abusive spouse to try and change them.
The very nature of the EU (and over-large membership) means we'll always have minority influence, and the EU's power-grabbing nature can only come at the expense of Parliament.
Mr. Eagles, well, it's not like they have anything serious to discuss. Rotherham/Iraq/Syria/Ukraine/deficit/ebola.
Devastating for Cameron if true. He gets spat in the face with Juncker's appointment, and they don't even bother to give him a big job to make up for it. They haven't even decided on who they want as internal markets, but they have to decided to exclude the Brits. To make it worse, one of the big economic appointments goes to France! Clearly the EU just wants to screw us now and Juncker is getting his revenge.
The "we must stay in for influence" argument goes up in smoke if this goes through. Cameron must be fighting hard to overturn this.
Hurdle one. Fell over. Cam out is becoming critical to the chances of stopping the lefties
and it becomes clear that there it is going to be very expensive to set up an independent Scotland.
That's always been obvious to the more intelligent. An independent Defence force would have massive set up costs for example.
The price of energy would likely rise too - no more subsidised power from the south. Easy to disconnect the two grids as well.
Discriminatory subsidies and unilateral or concerted anti-competitive conduct is not permitted by the Energy Charter Treaty, Which the UK has signed up to, so you would have to end subsidies to the (inefficient) Thames Array and stop using the dutch interconnector (used to take wind generated power from N Germany and Netherlands) as well.
Also, Scotland's exports of electricity from our excess generating capacity keep your lights on during the winter
Here is a comment that a senior council member passed by me. Salmond needs to win not 1 but 2 votes. Say the referendum is 51% Yes and Salmond starts trying to negotiate independence. The UK Government go No you dont get to use the pound, EU says you need to use the Euro and it becomes clear that there it is going to be very expensive to set up an independent Scotland. In May we have a new Scottish election and the SNP get thrown out. Labour then suggests a new referendum based on what the reality would be which is rejected. This is within the 1 year before Scotland becomes independent.
What happens if the Scottish people don't like they deal they can get? Well the answer would seem to be from both sides, tough, live with it. Wasn't there, years ago a plan, whereby there would be two votes, the first on the principle and the second, after negotiations, on the actual terms? That would also present its difficulties but surely better than the scenario you present.
The potential pitfalls around currency, defence, EU, financial services, debt share, etc, etc have been flagged ad nauseam. The Scots are about to vote with eyes wide open. True independence will be painful. Very painful. We're about to find out if they think it's worth it nonetheless.
It's even worse than that. If we vote to leave the UK we vote to leave the internal UK market that makes up the bulk of Scotland's income. We can put figures on the likely number made unemployed because Scotland is no longer selling at the same rate to the UK. With some reasonable assumptions, I estimate a post independence unemployment rate of 15%-20%, up from 7% now. People are literally voting themselves out of a job and livelihood. They are so wrapped up in wishful they have no idea what they are voting for.
on Hurstlama's point I can can see Scotland and rUK moving swftly to a complete separation of parliaments and revenues before the next UK election in 2015, but taking their time on constitutional and monetary issues until Scotland gets the go ahead for EU membership. There is a long possibility that a referendum could be put to the Scottish people to stop there - ie with a confederation. I don't think the SNP would do that for ideological reasons, but Labour and allies could campaign on that in the Holyrood election.
If that's where they end up so be it. As has been said, the Scots are voting with eyes open, and of their own free will.
More details on the energy portfolio on the commission website, the key issue at the moment is gas from Russia and structure of the energy system (eg independent transmission systems).
Juncker has also created a new position of "Vice-President for energy union", so the British commissioner for energy won't even have autonomy, and will report to the former Latvian PM who has got this position:
Eight men charged with child sexual exploitation in Buckinghamshire... Add Ayesbury to the list...
Nice to see that the principle of innocent until proven guilty has been dispensed with, and that a charge is equivalent to a conviction.
I don't think Socrates' post implied that.
Additionally, it is probably clear that a crime has occurred. Whether the individuals charged are guilty of the crime (or whether there is the evidence to convict them) we won't know until after the trial.
I have a weakness for having a massive Airborne/Air Assault Division(s)
Edit: Then again The Paras went 50 years without making combat jump
Have the Paras actually made a combat jump since Suez (my late father in law jumped in that and he was a Royal Marine). Small units have, for sure, but not what you would call a proper combat jump. What is more we don't have the capability to drop more than a company sized formation and I read a year or so back that many so-called Paras are no longer even qualified to jump. Not that many years ago one battalion of the three in the Parachute battalion was always in what they called Penguin mode, that is they had to spend a tour operating as ordinary infantry. Now we still have three battalions (though one is for special forces support) and of the other two only one company(ish) is jump capable, at any time. I suggest that the Parachute Regiment was called into being because of a particular set of circumstances, just like the Glider Pilot Regiment. Unlike the Glider Pilot Regiment, the Parachute Regiment has lived on beyond the period for which it was needed.
The Parachute Regiment is an example of the army's problem. Our defence needs have changed and they pretend to offer something that they can't deliver and which we don't need or which could be provided more effectively under a unified command structure elsewhere.
The pro-CAP Irish have got the agricultural position, while the non-NATO Austrians have got geostrategy, and the pro-Russian Italians have got foreign policy.
De Valera should have had the decency to have retired from public life after the Civil War that his lunatic ideology played a considerable part in bringing about. In fact, many were prosecuted for desertion in absentia, and did face legal consequences when they returned to the Republic.
From my window I can see some of them literally crying in the streets at the news of the appointment of a socialist as Regional Policy Commissioner. It reminds me of the scenes from Wall Street during the Great Crash. Oh, look, one has just jumped from a 10th story window! The humanity!
I have a weakness for having a massive Airborne/Air Assault Division(s)
Edit: Then again The Paras went 50 years without making combat jump
Have the Paras actually made a combat jump since Suez (my late father in law jumped in that and he was a Royal Marine). Small units have, for sure, but not what you would call a proper combat jump. What is more we don't have the capability to drop more than a company sized formation and I read a year or so back that many so-called Paras are no longer even qualified to jump. Not that many years ago one battalion of the three in the Parachute battalion was always in what they called Penguin mode, that is they had to spend a tour operating as ordinary infantry. Now we still have three battalions (though one is for special forces support) and of the other two only one company(ish) is jump capable, at any time. I suggest that the Parachute Regiment was called into being because of a particular set of circumstances, just like the Glider Pilot Regiment. Unlike the Glider Pilot Regiment, the Parachute Regiment has lived on beyond the period for which it was needed.
The Parachute Regiment is an example of the army's problem. Our defence needs have changed and they pretend to offer something that they can't deliver and which we don't need or which could be provided more effectively under a unified command structure elsewhere.
P.S. Don't get me started on Crab Air.
They did in Afghanistan Dec 2010, The 1st Battalion, as part of a wider Airborne/Air Assault Campaign.
Devastating for Cameron if true. He gets spat in the face with Juncker's appointment, and they don't even bother to give him a big job to make up for it. They haven't even decided on who they want as internal markets, but they have to decided to exclude the Brits. To make it worse, one of the big economic appointments goes to France! Clearly the EU just wants to screw us now and Juncker is getting his revenge.
The "we must stay in for influence" argument goes up in smoke if this goes through. Cameron must be fighting hard to overturn this.
What this refutes is the idea that the British can get what they want by being generally grumpy and passive-aggressive.
That said, it was a bit weird to expect a non-Euro member to get a big economic post, and the UK had the foreign portfolio recently, so apart from EUCO president it's not obvious what bigger job they could have got. Not to mention the fact that while other countries nominate top-tier politicians, and sometimes actual Prime Ministers, Cameron picked a lobbyist who even most of us political nerds hadn't heard of.
De Valera should have had the decency to have retired from public life after the Civil War that his lunatic ideology played a considerable part in bringing about.
I read a quite recently that De Valera described the achievements of (and participants in) the early Free State governments as "magnificent". That he didnt immediately realise that this was a damning indictment of his own past positions and actions and resign says something about his self-image.
Comments
No 53
Yes 47
Betting worries - Existential threats to Lab overall/Tory seat hedged positions. More likely to pay out to Union Divvie (Yes > 50) rather than James Bond (Yes < 43)
As it is, it's going to end in tears, whatever the result, because the SNP did not trust the courage of the people of Scotland.
For those hanging their hats on the legal argument, it's worth noting that their purchase was controversial even at the time they were removed from Greece two hundred years ago, notably at a time when Britain didn't have particular qualms about colonial conquest.
I'm puzzled by the apparent right/left-wing split on this, with right-wing patriots largely wanting to keep the Marbles in Britain, despite the fact that they would be most motivated about retrieving similar British relics if any such had been taken abroad by a militarily dominant colonial power.
Similarly, why are largely left-wing posters so determined to enforce the national ownership of these Marbles by Greece? I thought national borders weren't supposed to be all that important to lefties like me? It's not like there's a descendant of any of the original artists or workmen who is claiming ownership of them - so why should these people wholly unconnected to the Marbles, but who happen to live in the same rough geographical area, have a greater claim to ownership of any other member of the human race?
The modern inhabitants of Greek have no more right to ownership of the Marbles than I do to ownership of stone circles on Dartmoor, near to where I currently reside.
Doubtless a lot of mistakes were made in the past, but I'd rather we put more effort into preventing more mistakes being made now - such as with the tragic loss of artefacts in Iraq and Egypt in recent years - than trying to work out how to untangle distant history.
NURTIP!
Or is reality different in MalkyWorld?
Alex Salmond's vision for a fairer Scotland is a con, says Ed Miliband
Labout leader dismisses SNP claims that only a yes vote in independence referendum will ensure Tories are ousted
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/04/alex-salmond-vision-fairer-scotland-con-ed-miliband
At this point I shall skate swiftly over Ed's trust rating among Labour voters in Scotland....
This is within the 1 year before Scotland becomes independent.
Since they are not going to get their own way on trivialities like currency or the EU, why should the timetable be any different?
Westminster will set the timetable.
I thought Scotland had a long standing alliance with France - against England especially.
I have been watching a similar but less traumatic negotiation between Switzerland and the EU over the last year. As soon as the Swiss voted to leave parts of the EU the gloves came off. They got thrown off all sorts of institutions which impacted them more than they realised. The Swiss economy is now in recession and trade with EU is one big reason. The other impact is that the big MNC HQs are slowly moving to Ireland and the UK.
Must admit to being rather relieved to find an interesting discussion taking place on the Elgin Marbles amongst the usual rhetoric for a ‘Scottish thread’ ; )
Thought I’d add my 2p on the subject with the little known story of a Scottish sculpture called John Henning, who with the permission of Lord Elgin, created miniature copies of the Parthenon friezes which were eagerly collected by 'gentlemen' and the Prince Regent, long before they found a home in the BM.
Admission, I researched his fascinating story several years ago, when I acquired a set of his work at auction. - for those interested, the wiki link is below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henning_(1771–1851)
The price of energy would likely rise too - no more subsidised power from the south. Easy to disconnect the two grids as well.
What happens if the Scottish people don't like they deal they can get? Well the answer would seem to be from both sides, tough, live with it. Wasn't there, years ago a plan, whereby there would be two votes, the first on the principle and the second, after negotiations, on the actual terms? That would also present its difficulties but surely better than the scenario you present.
BlokeNHSF...UP UKIP @Bnhsfup 3m
ISIS militants executed up to 770 Iraqi troops in Tikrit – report — RT News http://rt.com/news/184893-isis-mass-execution-iraq/#.VAg8BIhgWy4.twitter …
The savagery getting ever more savage: a regular dance of death.
Given the education system I suppose only the older voters are able to read and write. The younger ones will just make their X mark on the day.
I can imagine the response.
Mr. Evershed, I'm sure our Scottish friends would not do such a thing nowadays (especially with rumours of enormo-haddock located in various lochs...).
Not that I really give a monkey's about the marbles, they are too fragmentary to do much for me aesthetically and easily copied with 100% fidelity.
I'm not sure I'm a 'right wing patriot', but I have been arguing that side. If relics were taken from Britain in history, then I'm not too fussed about getting them back if they're being well cared for. Then again, there probably are not many objects in that category.
I would argue that objects looted in modern times (such as Nazi war art) ought to be returned where the original owners or their descendants can be adequately determined. Objects predating these treaties are a different matter, and legality is much more complex, especially when things were often down by handshakes between gentlemen.
Even nowadays legality can be vexing: BR locomotive 70013 Oliver Cromwell was saved by the nation and given on 'permanent loan' to a museum. When the national collection wanted it back, the museum complained. How 'permanent' should a 'permanent loan' be considered?
Coincidentally, the BBC recently had an article on war loot from the war of 1812.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-28833238
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/theres-no-place-like-home-says-son-of-cheddar-man-1271817.html
"Both Scotland and Wales are net exporters of electricity, with England importing electricity from both countries and from continental Europe"
England's electricity is much more likely to rise in price than Scotland's, following independence. It's not like Scotland won't have any cards to play in the Independence negotiations.
The battle for Boris Johnson’s crown as Mayor of London starts today as Labour MP David Lammy becomes the first to throw his hat into the ring.
The former minister used an exclusive interview with Evening Standard editor Sarah Sands to launch his bid for the keys to City Hall in 2016.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-mp-david-lammy-throws-hat-into-ring-to-succeed-boris-johnson-as-london-mayor-9711031.html
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/london-mayoral-election-2016/next-mayor
Then they could put the terms of independence to a referendum. The referendum question could be to accept the independence terms or to stay in the UK.
It would be like referendums about EU membership and terms. Countries keep being asked to vote until they produce the answer the establishment seeks.
You did this because you were hilariously badly informed about the realities of the electricity market, so why don't you go and find out about the differences in unit costs and find out what the true answer is rather than just making things up that might or might not be true?
Having read the firman though (or at least the English translation of the Italian translation that is all that exists) most of it is about access to the site and the drawing of the marbles, with the throw away line about "no one will get in their way if they decide to remove any stones from the site"
It looks like Elgin aggressively interpreted his mandate!
"Mr. Llama, to be fair, London's crammed with all sorts of foreign chaps, not just Frenchies"
Very true, you should visit it sometime. The boys on here would I am sure rally round to show you a good time.
By the way I was up your way yesterday, just a flying visit up in the morning back the afternoon. I do like Leeds, it has very many fine buildings, nice people and a nice atmosphere, and one of the worst and most confusing one-way systems anywhere on the planet.
How anyone not bred to it is supposed to navigate their way around is beyond me and you seem to have a special system installed that cuts out satellite signals just as a visitor approaches a junction leaving him totally at a loss if he is using a GPS. In trying to get to a building in the city centre and thence to a building in Headingly and thence back out to the M1, I used as much bad language as should last an ordinary Christian gentleman his whole life, if he is careful.
Still hope to be back in three weeks or so when I'll have more time and maybe we could meet. There is much to discuss on the diplomacy front of you can survive that long.
They would just have to follow the sound of bagpipes.
"No thanks, I'll go south, and see the world with the rUK"
That would free up the 4 Billion kept on deposit at the BoE to underwrite them - the banks concerned would love that!
PS Can I volunteer to collect a couple of £100 million pound notes for them?
I still give NO a 75% chance though.
If you believe in a Yes vote then you could also look at taking side bets on the UK election. The impact will be large. My gut feeling is that Labour and the Conservatives will go up and UKIP will be side lined.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29061300
Whatever happened to Dave's Z list?
Diplomacy does look unpromising, but I seem to recall you said much the same about Russia [admittedly, I lost that game but had a decent run].
Not tempted to add any more.
04/09/2014 10:44
Front page of @ClactonGazette: 150 local Conservatives pledge their support to @DouglasCarswell pic.twitter.com/yq9COrhxhF
04/09/2014 10:49
"To better understand the enemy staff at CCHQ have been ordered to read Revolt on the Right" bit.ly/1pMnd80
http://www.wolmarforlondon.co.uk/
He won't win it, but at least he's not a politician in the ordinary sense, and has a passion for London.
As for Lammy: I find him both interesting and infuriating. I really like some of the things he says; others are just laughably pathetic.
Is that all you have?
The trick of turning regiments into battalions of an amalgamated regiment has long been used in the British army to get over the resistance to the amalgamation. It is of course a con and the original Regiment's ethos is allowed to wither on the vine until it is entirely subsumed.
Personally, I'd just abolish the army. We are never going to use them again except in light roles and for that an expended Royal Marines will do the job.
I have a weakness for having a massive Airborne/Air Assault Division(s)
Edit: Then again The Paras went 50 years without making combat jump
Shadsy has put up a market on whether the next Panelbase has a Yes or No lead.
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/is-there-a-yes-lead-coming-up-in-the-polls/
'Is there a YES lead coming up in the polls?'
http://tinyurl.com/ns6njat
Fast forward to the 1930s and her mother was at a rather grand dinner in a country house in England. She recognised the silver and commented in passing on it. The next morning she woke up to find the canteen of silver, cleaned and polished, outside her bedroom door with a nice note from the hostess thanking her for the loan...
I've had a nibble on there being a Yes lead.
http://sportsbeta.ladbrokes.com/Scottish-Referendum/Scottish-Independence-Referendum/Politics-N-1z141mxZ1z0sr2qZ1z141ne/
They are having a debate about "Puppies and Kittens"
They are debating puppies and kittens in Parliament. Really they are
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bwr1gDGIMAApR0R.jpg
on Hurstlama's point I can can see Scotland and rUK moving swftly to a complete separation of parliaments and revenues before the next UK election in 2015, but taking their time on constitutional and monetary issues until Scotland gets the go ahead for EU membership. There is a long possibility that a referendum could be put to the Scottish people to stop there - ie with a confederation. I don't think the SNP would do that for ideological reasons, but Labour and allies could campaign on that in the Holyrood election.
The "we must stay in for influence" argument goes up in smoke if this goes through. Cameron must be fighting hard to overturn this.
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-elections-2014/juncker-owes-cameron-nothing-over-top-jobs-303542
If the EU owes nothing to us, isn't it about time we stopped subsidising them? I don't really feel happy paying the salary for a French competition commissioner to further protect the French farmers we subsidise from competition...
The very nature of the EU (and over-large membership) means we'll always have minority influence, and the EU's power-grabbing nature can only come at the expense of Parliament.
Mr. Eagles, well, it's not like they have anything serious to discuss. Rotherham/Iraq/Syria/Ukraine/deficit/ebola.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-29054064
Add Ayesbury to the list...
Cam out is becoming critical to the chances of stopping the lefties
Also, Scotland's exports of electricity from our excess generating capacity keep your lights on during the winter
It's England's gain.
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/index_en.htm
More details on the energy portfolio on the commission website, the key issue at the moment is gas from Russia and structure of the energy system (eg independent transmission systems).
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-priorities-2020/exclusive-juncker-team-revealed-308203
He really is intent on sidelining us.
Additionally, it is probably clear that a crime has occurred. Whether the individuals charged are guilty of the crime (or whether there is the evidence to convict them) we won't know until after the trial.
The Parachute Regiment is an example of the army's problem. Our defence needs have changed and they pretend to offer something that they can't deliver and which we don't need or which could be provided more effectively under a unified command structure elsewhere.
P.S. Don't get me started on Crab Air.
Bloody devastating news for conservatives.
http://www.eliteukforces.info/uk-military-news/281210-paras-jump-into-action.php
That said, it was a bit weird to expect a non-Euro member to get a big economic post, and the UK had the foreign portfolio recently, so apart from EUCO president it's not obvious what bigger job they could have got. Not to mention the fact that while other countries nominate top-tier politicians, and sometimes actual Prime Ministers, Cameron picked a lobbyist who even most of us political nerds hadn't heard of.