Dair London puts in more than it takes out compared to Scotland, but of course Scotland will have to get its own currency as England and Wales do not want currency union, or it could join the euro
Every penny London spends on its infrastructure is subsidised by the rest of the UK. Almost all London infrastructure is classed as "UK spending" by the government. Most of that is from the Scottish subsidy, Scotland would be at least £600bn better off since 1980 had it been independent and not pauing for English debt and London subsidy. that's the bottom line and why Scotland needs independence to choose its own destiny based on its enormous wealth.
Have you included RBS and BoS in your satirical fairy tale?
Bank bailouts, if chosen by the government (as opposed to jailing crooked bankers as Iceland did - higher GDP than the UK today BTW) Those bailouts are paid by the governments where the economic activity is, 50% of "British" banks were bailed out by the US government.
Scotland's financial services are almost entirely low risk investment funds. Pensions and Current Accounts, the entirety of the bank bail out was London based activity and if it happened today, would be paid 100% by the Westminster government.
You accept there is no future for large banks headquartered in Scotland?
Eric Joyce MP @ericjoyce 10m Note to EdM's not especially good staff. Project Fear, e.g border guards, will lose you everything now. Shut tf up.
Ouch, being told you're not very good by Eric Joyce a few minutes before closing time. Well, probably hurts less than being physically attacked by Eric Joyce a few minutes before closing time.
Naughty.
And I owe you an apology, you were the one to advise to back Yes, yesterday when Roger said no was going to win.
Tbf your point that SO was tipping 'yes' was a compelling one.
I see SO has actually already called the result for 'yes' now. That probably counts more than a week of you govs showing 'yes' ahead.
Eric Joyce MP @ericjoyce 10m Note to EdM's not especially good staff. Project Fear, e.g border guards, will lose you everything now. Shut tf up.
Ouch, being told you're not very good by Eric Joyce a few minutes before closing time. Well, probably hurts less than being physically attacked by Eric Joyce a few minutes before closing time.
Naughty.
And I owe you an apology, you were the one to advise to back Yes, yesterday when Roger said no was going to win.
Tbf your point that SO was tipping 'yes' was a compelling one.
I see SO has actually already called the result for 'yes' now. That probably counts more than a week of you govs showing 'yes' ahead.
Dair London puts in more than it takes out compared to Scotland, but of course Scotland will have to get its own currency as England and Wales do not want currency union, or it could join the euro
Every penny London spends on its infrastructure is subsidised by the rest of the UK. Almost all London infrastructure is classed as "UK spending" by the government. Most of that is from the Scottish subsidy, Scotland would be at least £600bn better off since 1980 had it been independent and not pauing for English debt and London subsidy. that's the bottom line and why Scotland needs independence to choose its own destiny based on its enormous wealth.
Have you included RBS and BoS in your satirical fairy tale?
Bank bailouts, if chosen by the government (as opposed to jailing crooked bankers as Iceland did - higher GDP than the UK today BTW) Those bailouts are paid by the governments where the economic activity is, 50% of "British" banks were bailed out by the US government.
Scotland's financial services are almost entirely low risk investment funds. Pensions and Current Accounts, the entirety of the bank bail out was London based activity and if it happened today, would be paid 100% by the Westminster government.
You accept there is no future for large banks headquartered in Scotland?
Banks can happily base themselves in Scotland and pay Scottish taxes and if it all goes pear shaped other countries like the UK and US will pay the cost of that. That's how banking works - the activity demands the bailout. The 2008 crisis would have cost Scotland virtually nothng and bankrupt England pretty much the same as it paid.
Dair London puts in more than it takes out compared to Scotland, but of course Scotland will have to get its own currency as England and Wales do not want currency union, or it could join the euro
Every penny London spends on its infrastructure is subsidised by the rest of the UK. Almost all London infrastructure is classed as "UK spending" by the government. Most of that is from the Scottish subsidy, Scotland would be at least £600bn better off since 1980 had it been independent and not pauing for English debt and London subsidy. that's the bottom line and why Scotland needs independence to choose its own destiny based on its enormous wealth.
Have you included RBS and BoS in your satirical fairy tale?
Bank bailouts, if chosen by the government (as opposed to jailing crooked bankers as Iceland did - higher GDP than the UK today BTW) Those bailouts are paid by the governments where the economic activity is, 50% of "British" banks were bailed out by the US government.
Scotland's financial services are almost entirely low risk investment funds. Pensions and Current Accounts, the entirety of the bank bail out was London based activity and if it happened today, would be paid 100% by the Westminster government.
Iceland happens to be outside the EU. What's your opinion of Scotland continuing to be part of the EU (no doubt on costlier terms than it currently enjoys), which has imposed the austerity (real austerity, not the bedroom bloody tax) you and your fellow nationalists so despise on countries like Greece?
Banks can happily base themselves in Scotland and pay Scottish taxes and if it all goes pear shaped other countries like the UK and US will pay the cost of that.
This terms of this referendum are in themselves another lamentable own goal by the unionists - and in this case Cameron must bear most of the blame. It was clear from the start that the most popular option is "devomax" - Scots do not want separation but they do want more powers. But Dave in his wisdom contrived to offer a referendum which did not allow Scots to vote for that option. They can opt only for no change - the world as it is - or independence - the world of their dreams. The no campaign has been left in the absurd position of saying "vote for no change but that doesn't in fact mean no change - we'll be offering you loads of goodies which are...er....we'll let you know later. Trust us." Ridiculous.
Which is why Cameron must take the lion's share of the blame if the yes side wins - he offered them an open goal - he did not need to do that, he could and should have insisted on a less divisive process and more than one option on the ballot paper.
Salmond always said he wanted independence. If he didn't want it why didn't he say so?
Dair London puts in more than it takes out compared to Scotland, but of course Scotland will have to get its own currency as England and Wales do not want currency union, or it could join the euro
Every penny London spends on its infrastructure is subsidised by the rest of the UK. Almost all London infrastructure is classed as "UK spending" by the government. Most of that is from the Scottish subsidy, Scotland would be at least £600bn better off since 1980 had it been independent and not pauing for English debt and London subsidy. that's the bottom line and why Scotland needs independence to choose its own destiny based on its enormous wealth.
Have you included RBS and BoS in your satirical fairy tale?
Bank bailouts, if chosen by the government (as opposed to jailing crooked bankers as Iceland did - higher GDP than the UK today BTW) Those bailouts are paid by the governments where the economic activity is, 50% of "British" banks were bailed out by the US government.
Scotland's financial services are almost entirely low risk investment funds. Pensions and Current Accounts, the entirety of the bank bail out was London based activity and if it happened today, would be paid 100% by the Westminster government.
Whatever: Standard Life's customer base ( as an example of Scottish financial services) is 90% non Scottish. Following a Yes they will head south, as will the jobs. Now Scotland will survive no problem but it will be poorer post independence, that's the bit Salmond is keeping stumm about, and which is going to cause the grief post a Yes vote.
Dair London puts in more than it takes out compared to Scotland, but of course Scotland will have to get its own currency as England and Wales do not want currency union, or it could join the euro
Every penny London spends on its infrastructure is subsidised by the rest of the UK. Almost all London infrastructure is classed as "UK spending" by the government. Most of that is from the Scottish subsidy, Scotland would be at least £600bn better off since 1980 had it been independent and not pauing for English debt and London subsidy. that's the bottom line and why Scotland needs independence to choose its own destiny based on its enormous wealth.
Have you included RBS and BoS in your satirical fairy tale?
Bank bailouts, if chosen by the government (as opposed to jailing crooked bankers as Iceland did - higher GDP than the UK today BTW) Those bailouts are paid by the governments where the economic activity is, 50% of "British" banks were bailed out by the US government.
Scotland's financial services are almost entirely low risk investment funds. Pensions and Current Accounts, the entirety of the bank bail out was London based activity and if it happened today, would be paid 100% by the Westminster government.
You accept there is no future for large banks headquartered in Scotland?
Banks can happily base themselves in Scotland and pay Scottish taxes and if it all goes pear shaped other countries like the UK and US will pay the cost of that. That's how banking works - the activity demands the bailout. The 2008 crisis would have cost Scotland virtually nothng and bankrupt England pretty much the same as it paid.
Tell that to your celtic cousins in Eire. You're an idiot and an ingrate.
Dair London puts in more than it takes out compared to Scotland, but of course Scotland will have to get its own currency as England and Wales do not want currency union, or it could join the euro
Every penny London spends on its infrastructure is subsidised by the rest of the UK. Almost all London infrastructure is classed as "UK spending" by the government. Most of that is from the Scottish subsidy, Scotland would be at least £600bn better off since 1980 had it been independent and not pauing for English debt and London subsidy. that's the bottom line and why Scotland needs independence to choose its own destiny based on its enormous wealth.
Have you included RBS and BoS in your satirical fairy tale?
Bank bailouts, if chosen by the government (as opposed to jailing crooked bankers as Iceland did - higher GDP than the UK today BTW) Those bailouts are paid by the governments where the economic activity is, 50% of "British" banks were bailed out by the US government.
Scotland's financial services are almost entirely low risk investment funds. Pensions and Current Accounts, the entirety of the bank bail out was London based activity and if it happened today, would be paid 100% by the Westminster government.
Iceland happens to be outside the EU. What's your opinion of Scotland continuing to be part of the EU (no doubt on costlier terms than it currently enjoys), which has imposed the austerity (real austerity, not the bedroom bloody tax) you and your fellow nationalists so despise on countries like Greece?
There's a song I heard, that sums it up
I got this feeling on the summer day when you were gone. I crashed my car into the bridge. I watched, I let it burn. I threw your shit into a bag and pushed it down the stairs. I crashed my car into the bridge.
Dair London puts in more than it takes out compared to Scotland, but of course Scotland will have to get its own currency as England and Wales do not want currency union, or it could join the euro
Every penny London spends on its infrastructure is subsidised by the rest of the UK. Almost all London infrastructure is classed as "UK spending" by the government. Most of that is from the Scottish subsidy, Scotland would be at least £600bn better off since 1980 had it been independent and not pauing for English debt and London subsidy. that's the bottom line and why Scotland needs independence to choose its own destiny based on its enormous wealth.
Have you included RBS and BoS in your satirical fairy tale?
Bank bailouts, if chosen by the government (as opposed to jailing crooked bankers as Iceland did - higher GDP than the UK today BTW) Those bailouts are paid by the governments where the economic activity is, 50% of "British" banks were bailed out by the US government. T Scotland's financial services are almost entirely low risk investment funds. Pensions and Current Accounts, the entirety of the bank bail out was London based activity and if it happened today, would be paid 100% by the Westminster government.
You accept there is no future for large banks headquartered in Scotland?
Banks can happily base themselves in Scotland and pay Scottish taxes and if it all goes pear shaped other countries like the UK and US will pay the cost of that. That's how banking works - the activity demands the bailout. The 2008 crisis would have cost Scotland virtually nothng and bankrupt England pretty much the same as it paid.
Dair London puts in more than it takes out compared to Scotland, but of course Scotland will have to get its own currency as England and Wales do not want currency union, or it could join the euro
Every penny London spends on its infrastructure is subsidised by the rest of the UK. Almost all London infrastructure is classed as "UK spending" by the government. Most of that is from the Scottish subsidy, Scotland would be at least £600bn better off since 1980 had it been independent and not pauing for English debt and London subsidy. that's the bottom line and why Scotland needs independence to choose its own destiny based on its enormous wealth.
Have you included RBS and BoS in your satirical fairy tale?
Bank bailouts, if chosen by the government (as opposed to jailing crooked bankers as Iceland did - higher GDP than the UK today BTW) Those bailouts are paid by the governments where the economic activity is, 50% of "British" banks were bailed out by the US government.
Scotland's financial services are almost entirely low risk investment funds. Pensions and Current Accounts, the entirety of the bank bail out was London based activity and if it happened today, would be paid 100% by the Westminster government.
Iceland happens to be outside the EU. What's your opinion of Scotland continuing to be part of the EU (no doubt on costlier terms than it currently enjoys), which has imposed the austerity (real austerity, not the bedroom bloody tax) you and your fellow nationalists so despise on countries like Greece?
There's a song I heard, that sums it up
I got this feeling on the summer day when you were gone. I crashed my car into the bridge. I watched, I let it burn. I threw your shit into a bag and pushed it down the stairs. I crashed my car into the bridge.
I don't care, I love it. I don't care.
Thanks for that -a simple 'could you avoid mentioning that, it rips the anus out of my entire argument' would suffice.
All the righteous fiery anger about the iniquitous nature of Westminster rule, with its bankers and bail outs hoovering up Scotland's money and oil, but you're more than happy to remain under the authority of a corrupt venal, anti democratic elite in which Scotland has next to no say, that enforces every evil you rail against on its citizens ten times more than the UK does.
Anyone see the FT story about the Tories planning to give all expats the right to vote in UK elections. I wonder if they'll get that through in time for them all to vote to stay in the EU...
Dair London puts in more than it takes out compared to Scotland, but of course Scotland will have to get its own currency as England and Wales do not want currency union, or it could join the euro
Every penny London spends on its infrastructure is subsidised by the rest of the UK. Almost all London infrastructure is classed as "UK spending" by the government. Most of that is from the Scottish subsidy, Scotland would be at least £600bn better off since 1980 had it been independent and not pauing for English debt and London subsidy. that's the bottom line and why Scotland needs independence to choose its own destiny based on its enormous wealth.
Have you included RBS and BoS in your satirical fairy tale?
Bank bailouts, if chosen by the government (as opposed to jailing crooked bankers as Iceland did - higher GDP than the UK today BTW) Those bailouts are paid by the governments where the economic activity is, 50% of "British" banks were bailed out by the US government.
Scotland's financial services are almost entirely low risk investment funds. Pensions and Current Accounts, the entirety of the bank bail out was London based activity and if it happened today, would be paid 100% by the Westminster government.
Iceland happens to be outside the EU. What's your opinion of Scotland continuing to be part of the EU (no doubt on costlier terms than it currently enjoys), which has imposed the austerity (real austerity, not the bedroom bloody tax) you and your fellow nationalists so despise on countries like Greece?
There's a song I heard, that sums it up
I got this feeling on the summer day when you were gone. I crashed my car into the bridge. I watched, I let it burn. I threw your shit into a bag and pushed it down the stairs. I crashed my car into the bridge.
I don't care, I love it. I don't care.
Actually that's fair enough. I'm sure Ireland in 1918 didn't give a monkey's about the economics and I have no issue with Scots taking the same view now. However the whole thrust of the Yes campaign has been "there's no downside. Vote for us and it's free this that and the other, no Trident, no bedroom tax and no anything else you don't like,and of course " Westminster" ( The English ) will share the currency. That vision is bollocks, I'm afraid.
Dair London puts in more than it takes out compared to Scotland, but of course Scotland will have to get its own currency as England and Wales do not want currency union, or it could join the euro
Every penny London spends on its infrastructure is subsidised by the rest of the UK. Almost all London infrastructure is classed as "UK spending" by the government. Most of that is from the Scottish subsidy, Scotland would be at least £600bn better off since 1980 had it been independent and not pauing for English debt and London subsidy. that's the bottom line and why Scotland needs independence to choose its own destiny based on its enormous wealth.
Have you included RBS and BoS in your satirical fairy tale?
Bank bailouts, if chosen by the government (as opposed to jailing crooked bankers as Iceland did - higher GDP than the UK today BTW) Those bailouts are paid by the governments where the economic activity is, 50% of "British" banks were bailed out by the US government.
Scotland's financial services are almost entirely low risk investment funds. Pensions and Current Accounts, the entirety of the bank bail out was London based activity and if it happened today, would be paid 100% by the Westminster government.
You accept there is no future for large banks headquartered in Scotland?
Banks can happily base themselves in Scotland and pay Scottish taxes and if it all goes pear shaped other countries like the UK and US will pay the cost of that. That's how banking works - the activity demands the bailout. The 2008 crisis would have cost Scotland virtually nothng and bankrupt England pretty much the same as it paid.
Tell that to your celtic cousins in Eire. You're an idiot and an ingrate.
Ireland's bank bailout was paid for by UK taxpayers. They didn't even demand it normalise the corporation tax rate so Microsoft, Google, Apple et al are still based in Ireland paying lower taxes while the UK bails out the Irish Economy.
Anyone see the FT story about the Tories planning to give all expats the right to vote in UK elections. I wonder if they'll get that through in time for them all to vote to stay in the EU...
Dair London puts in more than it takes out compared to Scotland, but of course Scotland will have to get its own currency as England and Wales do not want currency union, or it could join the euro
Every penny London spends on its infrastructure is subsidised by the rest of the UK. Almost all London infrastructure is classed as "UK spending" by the government. Most of that is from the Scottish subsidy, Scotland would be at least £600bn better off since 1980 had it been independent and not pauing for English debt and London subsidy. that's the bottom line and why Scotland needs independence to choose its own destiny based on its enormous wealth.
Have you included RBS and BoS in your satirical fairy tale?
Bank bailouts, if chosen by the government (as opposed to jailing crooked bankers as Iceland did - higher GDP than the UK today BTW) Those bailouts are paid by the governments where the economic activity is, 50% of "British" banks were bailed out by the US government.
Scotland's financial services are almost entirely low risk investment funds. Pensions and Current Accounts, the entirety of the bank bail out was London based activity and if it happened today, would be paid 100% by the Westminster government.
You accept there is no future for large banks headquartered in Scotland?
Banks can happily base themselves in Scotland and pay Scottish taxes and if it all goes pear shaped other countries like the UK and US will pay the cost of that. That's how banking works - the activity demands the bailout. The 2008 crisis would have cost Scotland virtually nothng and bankrupt England pretty much the same as it paid.
Tell that to your celtic cousins in Eire. You're an idiot and an ingrate.
Ireland's bank bailout was paid for by UK taxpayers. They didn't even demand it normalise the corporation tax rate so Microsoft, Google, Apple et al are still based in Ireland paying lower taxes while the UK bails out the Irish Economy.
You should really stop when people just think you're an idiot. I think that's probably as far ahead as you are likely to get. If you're a 'no' troll trying to make out that 'yes' voters are clueless you should know that few wavering voters are reading this.
Dair London puts in more than it takes out compared to Scotland, but of course Scotland will have to get its own currency as England and Wales do not want currency union, or it could join the euro
Every penny London spends on its infrastructure is subsidised by the rest of the UK. Almost all London infrastructure is classed as "UK spending" by the government. Most of that is from the Scottish subsidy, Scotland would be at least £600bn better off since 1980 had it been independent and not pauing for English debt and London subsidy. that's the bottom line and why Scotland needs independence to choose its own destiny based on its enormous wealth.
Have you included RBS and BoS in your satirical fairy tale?
Bank bailouts, if chosen by the government (as opposed to jailing crooked bankers as Iceland did - higher GDP than the UK today BTW) Those bailouts are paid by the governments where the economic activity is, 50% of "British" banks were bailed out by the US government.
Scotland's financial services are almost entirely low risk investment funds. Pensions and Current Accounts, the entirety of the bank bail out was London based activity and if it happened today, would be paid 100% by the Westminster government.
You accept there is no future for large banks headquartered in Scotland?
Banks can happily base themselves in Scotland and pay Scottish taxes and if it all goes pear shaped other countries like the UK and US will pay the cost of that. That's how banking works - the activity demands the bailout. The 2008 crisis would have cost Scotland virtually nothng and bankrupt England pretty much the same as it paid.
Tell that to your celtic cousins in Eire. You're an idiot and an ingrate.
Ireland's bank bailout was paid for by UK taxpayers. They didn't even demand it normalise the corporation tax rate so Microsoft, Google, Apple et al are still based in Ireland paying lower taxes while the UK bails out the Irish Economy.
No it wasn't. UK taxpayers chipped in sure but the Germans were far more influential.
Dair London puts in more than it takes out compared to Scotland, but of course Scotland will have to get its own currency as England and Wales do not want currency union, or it could join the euro
Every penny London spends on its infrastructure is subsidised by the rest of the UK. Almost all London infrastructure is classed as "UK spending" by the government. Most of that is from the Scottish subsidy, Scotland would be at least £600bn better off since 1980 had it been independent and not pauing for English debt and London subsidy. that's the bottom line and why Scotland needs independence to choose its own destiny based on its enormous wealth.
Have you included RBS and BoS in your satirical fairy tale?
Bank bailouts, if chosen by the government (as opposed to jailing crooked bankers as Iceland did - higher GDP than the UK today BTW) Those bailouts are paid by the governments where the economic activity is, 50% of "British" banks were bailed out by the US government.
Scotland's financial services are almost entirely low risk investment funds. Pensions and Current Accounts, the entirety of the bank bail out was London based activity and if it happened today, would be paid 100% by the Westminster government.
Iceland happens to be outside the EU. What's your opinion of Scotland continuing to be part of the EU (no doubt on costlier terms than it currently enjoys), which has imposed the austerity (real austerity, not the bedroom bloody tax) you and your fellow nationalists so despise on countries like Greece?
There's a song I heard, that sums it up
I got this feeling on the summer day when you were gone. I crashed my car into the bridge. I watched, I let it burn. I threw your shit into a bag and pushed it down the stairs. I crashed my car into the bridge.
I don't care, I love it. I don't care.
Thanks for that -a simple 'could you avoid mentioning that, it rips the anus out of my entire argument' would suffice.
All the righteous fiery anger about the iniquitous nature of Westminster rule, with its bankers and bail outs hoovering up Scotland's money and oil, but you're more than happy to remain under the authority of a corrupt venal, anti democratic elite in which Scotland has next to no say, that enforces every evil you rail against on its citizens ten times more than the UK does.
Doesn't make sense really does it?
I posted it, because it doesn't matter. Polls are 50/50 but on the street people who have never voted are 75/25. Yes has already won.
Anyone see the FT story about the Tories planning to give all expats the right to vote in UK elections. I wonder if they'll get that through in time for them all to vote to stay in the EU...
But in which constituency?
The last one they lived in as now (the change would be to lift the restriction on how long you get to vote for after leaving).
Dair London puts in more than it takes out compared to Scotland, but of course Scotland will have to get its own currency as England and Wales do not want currency union, or it could join the euro
Every penny London spends on its infrastructure is subsidised by the rest of the UK. Almost all London infrastructure is classed as "UK spending" by the government. Most of that is from the Scottish subsidy, Scotland would be at least £600bn better off since 1980 had it been independent and not pauing for English debt and London subsidy. that's the bottom line and why Scotland needs independence to choose its own destiny based on its enormous wealth.
Have you included RBS and BoS in your satirical fairy tale?
Bank bailouts, if chosen by the government (as opposed to jailing crooked bankers as Iceland did - higher GDP than the UK today BTW) Those bailouts are paid by the governments where the economic activity is, 50% of "British" banks were bailed out by the US government.
Scotland's financial services are almost entirely low risk investment funds. Pensions and Current Accounts, the entirety of the bank bail out was London based activity and if it happened today, would be paid 100% by the Westminster government.
You accept there is no future for large banks headquartered in Scotland?
Banks can happily base themselves in Scotland and pay Scottish taxes and if it all goes pear shaped other countries like the UK and US will pay the cost of that. That's how banking works - the activity demands the bailout. The 2008 crisis would have cost Scotland virtually nothng and bankrupt England pretty much the same as it paid.
Tell that to your celtic cousins in Eire. You're an idiot and an ingrate.
Ireland's bank bailout was paid for by UK taxpayers. They didn't even demand it normalise the corporation tax rate so Microsoft, Google, Apple et al are still based in Ireland paying lower taxes while the UK bails out the Irish Economy.
You should really stop when people just think you're an idiot. I think that's probably as far ahead as you are likely to get. If you're a 'no' troll trying to make out that 'yes' voters are clueless you should know that few wavering voters are reading this.
Next you'll be accused of being a PB Tory Unionist who knows nothing about Ireland
Dair London puts in more than it takes out compared to Scotland, but of course Scotland will have to get its own currency as England and Wales do not want currency union, or it could join the euro
Every penny London spends on its infrastructure is subsidised by the rest of the UK. Almost all London infrastructure is classed as "UK spending" by the government. Most of that is from the Scottish subsidy, Scotland would be at least £600bn better off since 1980 had it been independent and not pauing for English debt and London subsidy. that's the bottom line and why Scotland needs independence to choose its own destiny based on its enormous wealth.
Have you included RBS and BoS in your satirical fairy tale?
Bank bailouts, if chosen by the government (as opposed to jailing crooked bankers as Iceland did - higher GDP than the UK today BTW) Those bailouts are paid by the governments where the economic activity is, 50% of "British" banks were bailed out by the US government.
Scotland's financial services are almost entirely low risk investment funds. Pensions and Current Accounts, the entirety of the bank bail out was London based activity and if it happened today, would be paid 100% by the Westminster government.
You accept there is no future for large banks headquartered in Scotland?
Banks can happily base themselves in Scotland and pay Scottish taxes and if it all goes pear shaped other countries like the UK and US will pay the cost of that. That's how banking works - the activity demands the bailout. The 2008 crisis would have cost Scotland virtually nothng and bankrupt England pretty much the same as it paid.
Tell that to your celtic cousins in Eire. You're an idiot and an ingrate.
Ireland's bank bailout was paid for by UK taxpayers. They didn't even demand it normalise the corporation tax rate so Microsoft, Google, Apple et al are still based in Ireland paying lower taxes while the UK bails out the Irish Economy.
I'll tell Neil of the Englishman's extraordinary beneficence.
Anyone see the FT story about the Tories planning to give all expats the right to vote in UK elections. I wonder if they'll get that through in time for them all to vote to stay in the EU...
But in which constituency?
I haven't seen the story but currently you can vote in the last constituency you were registered in. The catch is that there's a cut-off of 15 years after which you're considered insufficiently patriotic to take part in elections any more. Presumably the idea is to raise or abolish that cap. IIRC it used to be 25, but Labour cut it to 15, probably to restrict the ability of expats to donate money to the Tories.
Anyone see the FT story about the Tories planning to give all expats the right to vote in UK elections. I wonder if they'll get that through in time for them all to vote to stay in the EU...
But in which constituency?
The last one they lived in as now (the change would be to lift the restriction on how long you get to vote for after leaving).
Ridiculous. Why should people who haven't lived here for 10, 20, 30 years and pay no tax here get a vote?
Dair London puts in more than it takes out compared to Scotland, but of course Scotland will have to get its own currency as England and Wales do not want currency union, or it could join the euro
Every penny London spends on its infrastructure is subsidised by the rest of the UK. Almost all London infrastructure is classed as "UK spending" by the government. Most of that is from the Scottish subsidy, Scotland would be at least £600bn better off since 1980 had it been independent and not pauing for English debt and London subsidy. that's the bottom line and why Scotland needs independence to choose its own destiny based on its enormous wealth.
Have you included RBS and BoS in your satirical fairy tale?
Bank bailouts, if chosen by the government (as opposed to jailing crooked bankers as Iceland did - higher GDP than the UK today BTW) Those bailouts are paid by the governments where the economic activity is, 50% of "British" banks were bailed out by the US government.
Scotland's financial services are almost entirely low risk investment funds. Pensions and Current Accounts, the entirety of the bank bail out was London based activity and if it happened today, would be paid 100% by the Westminster government.
You accept there is no future for large banks headquartered in Scotland?
Banks can happily base themselves in Scotland and pay Scottish taxes and if it all goes pear shaped other countries like the UK and US will pay the cost of that. That's how banking works - the activity demands the bailout. The 2008 crisis would have cost Scotland virtually nothng and bankrupt England pretty much the same as it paid.
Tell that to your celtic cousins in Eire. You're an idiot and an ingrate.
Ireland's bank bailout was paid for by UK taxpayers. They didn't even demand it normalise the corporation tax rate so Microsoft, Google, Apple et al are still based in Ireland paying lower taxes while the UK bails out the Irish Economy.
No it wasn't. UK taxpayers chipped in sure but the Germans were far more influential.
I believe we are expecting to make a profit out of the Irish bailout. The UK guaranteed 80k of UK bank accounts. The general bailout was a loan.
I posted it, because it doesn't matter. Polls are 50/50 but on the street people who have never voted are 75/25. Yes has already won.
Be that as it may, I was questioning you about your own views -the electoral likelihood of a yes vote is immaterial. You claim to be seeking independence, when what you are really doing is imposing EU supremacy on worse terms than Scotland currently enjoys. Can you explain?
If unstable countries like Ukraine, Syria and Iraq can be independent, then why can't Scotland be independent?
They can. The point, which the No campaign has to my impression failed to exploit enough, is that they can't be independent as a "UK plus". An independent Scotland is an independent Scotland, for richer for poorer. What it will not be is a "UK with the bad bits removed".
Dair London puts in more than it takes out compared to Scotland, but of course Scotland will have to get its own currency as England and Wales do not want currency union, or it could join the euro
Every penny London spends on its infrastructure is subsidised by the rest of the UK. Almost all London infrastructure is classed as "UK spending" by the government. Most of that is from the Scottish subsidy, Scotland would be at least £600bn better off since 1980 had it been independent and not pauing for English debt and London subsidy. that's the bottom line and why Scotland needs independence to choose its own destiny based on its enormous wealth.
Have you included RBS and BoS in your satirical fairy tale?
Bank bailouts, if chosen by the government (as opposed to jailing crooked bankers as Iceland did - higher GDP than the UK today BTW) Those bailouts are paid by the governments where the economic activity is, 50% of "British" banks were bailed out by the US government.
Scotland's financial services are almost entirely low risk investment funds. Pensions and Current Accounts, the entirety of the bank bail out was London based activity and if it happened today, would be paid 100% by the Westminster government.
You accept there is no future for large banks headquartered in Scotland?
Banks can happily base themselves in Scotland and pay Scottish taxes and if it all goes pear shaped other countries like the UK and US will pay the cost of that. That's how banking works - the activity demands the bailout. The 2008 crisis would have cost Scotland virtually nothng and bankrupt England pretty much the same as it paid.
Tell that to your celtic cousins in Eire. You're an idiot and an ingrate.
Ireland's bank bailout was paid for by UK taxpayers. They didn't even demand it normalise the corporation tax rate so Microsoft, Google, Apple et al are still based in Ireland paying lower taxes while the UK bails out the Irish Economy.
No it wasn't. UK taxpayers chipped in sure but the Germans were far more influential.
Sweet Lord above. The only people on the hook for the bailout of Irish banks are Irish taxpayers. The people who were bailed out were Irish bank bondholders who managed to have their risky debt instruments guaranteed. Large chunks of these bonds were held by German and UK financial institutions. So the Irish bank bailout was a transfer of wealth from current and future Irish taxpayers to EU holders of risky Irish bank debt.
Anyone see the FT story about the Tories planning to give all expats the right to vote in UK elections. I wonder if they'll get that through in time for them all to vote to stay in the EU...
But in which constituency?
The last one they lived in as now (the change would be to lift the restriction on how long you get to vote for after leaving).
Ridiculous. Why should people who haven't lived here for 10, 20, 30 years and pay no tax here get a vote?
Most countries allow this. The EU has criticised the UK for the restrictions it puts on emigrants voting (15 years). There seems to be cross-party consensus that emigrants can vote. The Tory proposal would extend the franchise on the grounds that emigrants are older and more likely to vote Tory (it seems).
Anyone see the FT story about the Tories planning to give all expats the right to vote in UK elections. I wonder if they'll get that through in time for them all to vote to stay in the EU...
But in which constituency?
The last one they lived in as now (the change would be to lift the restriction on how long you get to vote for after leaving).
Ridiculous. Why should people who haven't lived here for 10, 20, 30 years and pay no tax here get a vote?
Because countries are very hung up about nationality, which is based on historical stuff about where you were born and where your parents are from, rather than practical stuff like where you live and who you pay taxes to.
IMHO a better system would be that you automatically have the vote wherever you're considered to live for tax purposes, but nationalistically-minded people don't seem to want to let people with foreign nationalities vote in their elections.
If you're going to do this by nationality, do it by nationality. The idea of democracy is that everybody gets to vote, not just people who stay in the same place for a long time.
Anyone see the FT story about the Tories planning to give all expats the right to vote in UK elections. I wonder if they'll get that through in time for them all to vote to stay in the EU...
But in which constituency?
The last one they lived in as now (the change would be to lift the restriction on how long you get to vote for after leaving).
Ridiculous. Why should people who haven't lived here for 10, 20, 30 years and pay no tax here get a vote?
Because countries are very hung up about nationality, which is based on historical stuff about where you were born and where your parents are from, rather than practical stuff like where you live and who you pay taxes to.
IMHO a better system would be that you automatically have the vote wherever you're considered for tax purposes, but nationalistically-minded people don't seem to want to let people with foreign nationalities vote in their elections.
If you're going to do this by nationality, do it by nationality. The idea of democracy is that everybody gets to vote, not just people who stay in the same place for a long time.
To be honest I'm fed up with us indulging the pampered internationalist elite. If people have lived here for a few years then they should probably be entitled to citizenship and voting rights. I would hope other countries would do the same, but if they don't then I'm sorry but the people moving there were not forced to do so.
Anyone see the FT story about the Tories planning to give all expats the right to vote in UK elections. I wonder if they'll get that through in time for them all to vote to stay in the EU...
But in which constituency?
The last one they lived in as now (the change would be to lift the restriction on how long you get to vote for after leaving).
Ridiculous. Why should people who haven't lived here for 10, 20, 30 years and pay no tax here get a vote?
Because countries are very hung up about nationality, which is based on historical stuff about where you were born and where your parents are from, rather than practical stuff like where you live and who you pay taxes to.
IMHO a better system would be that you automatically have the vote wherever you're considered to live for tax purposes, but nationalistically-minded people don't seem to want to let people with foreign nationalities vote in their elections.
If you're going to do this by nationality, do it by nationality. The idea of democracy is that everybody gets to vote, not just people who stay in the same place for a long time.
Watching the English football team has led me to the conclusion that nationalism has had its day, in future a Premiership Eleven should take on teams representing rival leagues.
Anyone see the FT story about the Tories planning to give all expats the right to vote in UK elections. I wonder if they'll get that through in time for them all to vote to stay in the EU...
But in which constituency?
The last one they lived in as now (the change would be to lift the restriction on how long you get to vote for after leaving).
Ridiculous. Why should people who haven't lived here for 10, 20, 30 years and pay no tax here get a vote?
Because countries are very hung up about nationality, which is based on historical stuff about where you were born and where your parents are from, rather than practical stuff like where you live and who you pay taxes to.
IMHO a better system would be that you automatically have the vote wherever you're considered for tax purposes, but nationalistically-minded people don't seem to want to let people with foreign nationalities vote in their elections.
If you're going to do this by nationality, do it by nationality. The idea of democracy is that everybody gets to vote, not just people who stay in the same place for a long time.
To be honest I'm fed up with us indulging the pampered internationalist elite. If people have lived here for a few years then they should probably be entitled to citizenship and voting rights. I would hope other countries would do the same, but if they don't then I'm sorry but the people moving there were not forced to do so.
So you're going to change nationality whenever you move to a different country, is that how you think it should work?
Anyone see the FT story about the Tories planning to give all expats the right to vote in UK elections. I wonder if they'll get that through in time for them all to vote to stay in the EU...
But in which constituency?
The last one they lived in as now (the change would be to lift the restriction on how long you get to vote for after leaving).
Ridiculous. Why should people who haven't lived here for 10, 20, 30 years and pay no tax here get a vote?
Because countries are very hung up about nationality, which is based on historical stuff about where you were born and where your parents are from, rather than practical stuff like where you live and who you pay taxes to.
IMHO a better system would be that you automatically have the vote wherever you're considered for tax purposes, but nationalistically-minded people don't seem to want to let people with foreign nationalities vote in their elections.
If you're going to do this by nationality, do it by nationality. The idea of democracy is that everybody gets to vote, not just people who stay in the same place for a long time.
To be honest I'm fed up with us indulging the pampered internationalist elite.
Yeah, I'm not sure that most people retiring to the Costa Del Sol see themselves as part of the pampered internationalist elite.
Odd to see Panelbase, the Yes side's most favourable pollster, showing no change in a timeframe where there's been a massive swing with YouGov. Is the latest Panelbase a rogue, or has something gone wrong with the YouGov methodology in the last couple of polls?
Anyone see the FT story about the Tories planning to give all expats the right to vote in UK elections. I wonder if they'll get that through in time for them all to vote to stay in the EU...
But in which constituency?
The last one they lived in as now (the change would be to lift the restriction on how long you get to vote for after leaving).
Ridiculous. Why should people who haven't lived here for 10, 20, 30 years and pay no tax here get a vote?
Because countries are very hung up about nationality, which is based on historical stuff about where you were born and where your parents are from, rather than practical stuff like where you live and who you pay taxes to.
IMHO a better system would be that you automatically have the vote wherever you're considered to live for tax purposes, but nationalistically-minded people don't seem to want to let people with foreign nationalities vote in their elections.
If you're going to do this by nationality, do it by nationality. The idea of democracy is that everybody gets to vote, not just people who stay in the same place for a long time.
The US lets you apply for citizenship after 6 years continuous residency, or 3 if you're married to an American.
Certain federal benefits are only available to citizens, regardless of how long you've lived in the US on a green card - which is actually white with a blue stripe.
Anyone see the FT story about the Tories planning to give all expats the right to vote in UK elections. I wonder if they'll get that through in time for them all to vote to stay in the EU...
But in which constituency?
The last one they lived in as now (the change would be to lift the restriction on how long you get to vote for after leaving).
Ridiculous. Why should people who haven't lived here for 10, 20, 30 years and pay no tax here get a vote?
Because countries are very hung up about nationality, which is based on historical stuff about where you were born and where your parents are from, rather than practical stuff like where you live and who you pay taxes to.
IMHO a better system would be that you automatically have the vote wherever you're considered for tax purposes, but nationalistically-minded people don't seem to want to let people with foreign nationalities vote in their elections.
If you're going to do this by nationality, do it by nationality. The idea of democracy is that everybody gets to vote, not just people who stay in the same place for a long time.
To be honest I'm fed up with us indulging the pampered internationalist elite.
Yeah, I'm not sure that most people retiring to the Costa Del Sol see themselves as part of the pampered internationalist elite.
But it just smacks of political desperation. The Tories realise they'll never get people who actually live here to back them (why would they?) so instead they want to fishing for voters who left a long time ago.
Anyone see the FT story about the Tories planning to give all expats the right to vote in UK elections. I wonder if they'll get that through in time for them all to vote to stay in the EU...
But in which constituency?
The last one they lived in as now (the change would be to lift the restriction on how long you get to vote for after leaving).
Ridiculous. Why should people who haven't lived here for 10, 20, 30 years and pay no tax here get a vote?
Because countries are very hung up about nationality, which is based on historical stuff about where you were born and where your parents are from, rather than practical stuff like where you live and who you pay taxes to.
IMHO a better system would be that you automatically have the vote wherever you're considered for tax purposes, but nationalistically-minded people don't seem to want to let people with foreign nationalities vote in their elections.
If you're going to do this by nationality, do it by nationality. The idea of democracy is that everybody gets to vote, not just people who stay in the same place for a long time.
To be honest I'm fed up with us indulging the pampered internationalist elite.
Yeah, I'm not sure that most people retiring to the Costa Del Sol see themselves as part of the pampered internationalist elite.
Speaking as a member of the internationalist elite I want to know where I have to apply for the pampering (*). Or is it the free use of the plastic chairs in immigration office?
(*) Although I admit I did just spend a month living in a different continent than usual for optimal weather, which feels quite decadent.
Another point to consider is that if Scotland votes Yes UKIP's average support would be closer to 20% than 15% such is the party's lack of support north of the border.
Anyone see the FT story about the Tories planning to give all expats the right to vote in UK elections. I wonder if they'll get that through in time for them all to vote to stay in the EU...
But in which constituency?
The last one they lived in as now (the change would be to lift the restriction on how long you get to vote for after leaving).
Ridiculous. Why should people who haven't lived here for 10, 20, 30 years and pay no tax here get a vote?
Because countries are very hung up about nationality, which is based on historical stuff about where you were born and where your parents are from, rather than practical stuff like where you live and who you pay taxes to.
IMHO a better system would be that you automatically have the vote wherever you're considered for tax purposes, but nationalistically-minded people don't seem to want to let people with foreign nationalities vote in their elections.
If you're going to do this by nationality, do it by nationality. The idea of democracy is that everybody gets to vote, not just people who stay in the same place for a long time.
To be honest I'm fed up with us indulging the pampered internationalist elite.
Yeah, I'm not sure that most people retiring to the Costa Del Sol see themselves as part of the pampered internationalist elite.
But it just smacks of political desperation. The Tories realise they'll never get people who actually live here to back them (why would they?) so instead they want to fishing for voters who left a long time ago.
Is it any more desperate than Labour removing the vote from some emigrants? Parties do what they can to stack the odds in their favour.
I was actually trying to wind up UKIP posters with the idea that Dave was trying to fix the EU referendum but none of them went for it!
Anyone see the FT story about the Tories planning to give all expats the right to vote in UK elections. I wonder if they'll get that through in time for them all to vote to stay in the EU...
But in which constituency?
The last one they lived in as now (the change would be to lift the restriction on how long you get to vote for after leaving).
Ridiculous. Why should people who haven't lived here for 10, 20, 30 years and pay no tax here get a vote?
Because countries are very hung up about nationality, which is based on historical stuff about where you were born and where your parents are from, rather than practical stuff like where you live and who you pay taxes to.
IMHO a better system would be that you automatically have the vote wherever you're considered for tax purposes, but nationalistically-minded people don't seem to want to let people with foreign nationalities vote in their elections.
If you're going to do this by nationality, do it by nationality. The idea of democracy is that everybody gets to vote, not just people who stay in the same place for a long time.
To be honest I'm fed up with us indulging the pampered internationalist elite.
Yeah, I'm not sure that most people retiring to the Costa Del Sol see themselves as part of the pampered internationalist elite.
Speaking as a member of the internationalist elite I want to know where I have to apply for the pampering (*). Or is it the free use of the plastic chairs in immigration office?
(*) Although I admit I did just spend a month living in a different continent than usual for optimal weather, which feels quite decadent.
I have both UK and US citizenship, and have lived in 5 countries, working in several more. Would that qualify me for honorary membership? I could use another card in my billfold.
I mean really, didn't they learn from the last time?
From the Sunday Times,
UKIP is planning to target the parliamentary seat of John Bercow if MPs topple him with a vote of no confidence.
UKIP polled 3% in 2010, they're now averaging 15%. Things have changed a bit since the last election.
I doubt they'll get anything like 15%. What polls generally fail to take into account is 1) the possibility that a UKIP candidate will not even be available to vote for and 2) that even if a candidate is available then voting for them will be seen as anything other than a wasted vote. Generally people voting for a candidate that has no prospect of victory will make no difference to a Parliamentary seat because they wouldn't have voted for one of the realistic contenders anyway.
What is also likely is that, with the possibility of a very small number of minor exceptions, UKIP will pull in the most votes in seats where voting for them will make little difference. Where they attract votes in marginals most of the votes will probably be protest voters who wouldn't have voted for another party anyway.
Anyone see the FT story about the Tories planning to give all expats the right to vote in UK elections. I wonder if they'll get that through in time for them all to vote to stay in the EU...
But in which constituency?
The last one they lived in as now (the change would be to lift the restriction on how long you get to vote for after leaving).
Ridiculous. Why should people who haven't lived here for 10, 20, 30 years and pay no tax here get a vote?
Because countries are very hung up about nationality, which is based on historical stuff about where you were born and where your parents are from, rather than practical stuff like where you live and who you pay taxes to.
IMHO a better system would be that you automatically have the vote wherever you're considered to live for tax purposes, but nationalistically-minded people don't seem to want to let people with foreign nationalities vote in their elections.
If you're going to do this by nationality, do it by nationality. The idea of democracy is that everybody gets to vote, not just people who stay in the same place for a long time.
The US lets you apply for citizenship after 6 years continuous residency, or 3 if you're married to an American.
Certain federal benefits are only available to citizens, regardless of how long you've lived in the US on a green card - which is actually white with a blue stripe.
So assuming the place you lived last before arriving in the US wasn't where you were a national, we're talking about a minimum of 6 years of disfranchisement where you have no vote anywhere in the world.
I don't really understand why people think it's a good idea to prohibit people from voting like this. Just pick one basis or the other (nationality or residence) and stick to it. People who aren't interested in the country where they're allowed to vote won't bother voting. What's the problem the pro-disfranchisement people think they're solving?
Another point to consider is that if Scotland votes Yes UKIP's average support would be closer to 20% than 15% such is the party's lack of support north of the border.
If Ukip is on 15% UK wide and has a minimal vote in Scotland, it will be on about 16% in rUK. Makes virtually no difference.
I have both UK and US citizenship, and have lived in 5 countries, working in several more. Would that qualify me for honorary membership? I could use another card in my billfold.
You'd definitely qualify - in fact you should already have been contacted by a representative of the New World Order. It might be worth taking it up with your local Bilderberg office.
Anyone see the FT story about the Tories planning to give all expats the right to vote in UK elections. I wonder if they'll get that through in time for them all to vote to stay in the EU...
But in which constituency?
The last one they lived in as now (the change would be to lift the restriction on how long you get to vote for after leaving).
Ridiculous. Why should people who haven't lived here for 10, 20, 30 years and pay no tax here get a vote?
Because countries are very hung up about nationality, which is based on historical stuff about where you were born and where your parents are from, rather than practical stuff like where you live and who you pay taxes to.
IMHO a better system would be that you automatically have the vote wherever you're considered to live for tax purposes, but nationalistically-minded people don't seem to want to let people with foreign nationalities vote in their elections.
If you're going to do this by nationality, do it by nationality. The idea of democracy is that everybody gets to vote, not just people who stay in the same place for a long time.
The US lets you apply for citizenship after 6 years continuous residency, or 3 if you're married to an American.
Certain federal benefits are only available to citizens, regardless of how long you've lived in the US on a green card - which is actually white with a blue stripe.
So assuming the place you lived last before arriving in the US wasn't where you were a national, we're talking about a minimum of 6 years of disfranchisement where you have no vote anywhere in the world.
I don't really understand why people think it's a good idea to prohibit people from voting like this. Just pick one basis or the other (nationality or residence) and stick to it. People who aren't interested in the country where they're allowed to vote won't bother voting. What's the problem the pro-disfranchisement people think they're solving?
I'm sorry if people have lived in foreign countries for years and are still disenfranchised but no-one forced them to move there. If you choose to live in Saudi Arabia you know what you are getting into. I don't see why you should be able to continue voting in the UK long term.
Anyone see the FT story about the Tories planning to give all expats the right to vote in UK elections. I wonder if they'll get that through in time for them all to vote to stay in the EU...
But in which constituency?
The last one they lived in as now (the change would be to lift the restriction on how long you get to vote for after leaving).
Ridiculous. Why should people who haven't lived here for 10, 20, 30 years and pay no tax here get a vote?
Because countries are very hung up about nationality, which is based on historical stuff about where you were born and where your parents are from, rather than practical stuff like where you live and who you pay taxes to.
IMHO a better system would be that you automatically have the vote wherever you're considered for tax purposes, but nationalistically-minded people don't seem to want to let people with foreign nationalities vote in their elections.
If you're going to do this by nationality, do it by nationality. The idea of democracy is that everybody gets to vote, not just people who stay in the same place for a long time.
To be honest I'm fed up with us indulging the pampered internationalist elite.
Yeah, I'm not sure that most people retiring to the Costa Del Sol see themselves as part of the pampered internationalist elite.
But it just smacks of political desperation. The Tories realise they'll never get people who actually live here to back them (why would they?) so instead they want to fishing for voters who left a long time ago.
The government's got the EU on their case, at least with regard to UK citizens living in EU countries. They could limit the change to people who lived in the EU, but the original disfranchisement was only done for Labour's political advantage in the first place, so it's not obvious why any other party would want to continue with that restriction.
Anyone see the FT story about the Tories planning to give all expats the right to vote in UK elections. I wonder if they'll get that through in time for them all to vote to stay in the EU...
But in which constituency?
The last one they lived in as now (the change would be to lift the restriction on how long you get to vote for after leaving).
Ridiculous. Why should people who haven't lived here for 10, 20, 30 years and pay no tax here get a vote?
Because countries are very hung up about nationality, which is based on historical stuff about where you were born and where your parents are from, rather than practical stuff like where you live and who you pay taxes to.
IMHO a better system would be that you automatically have the vote wherever you're considered to live for tax purposes, but nationalistically-minded people don't seem to want to let people with foreign nationalities vote in their elections.
If you're going to do this by nationality, do it by nationality. The idea of democracy is that everybody gets to vote, not just people who stay in the same place for a long time.
The US lets you apply for citizenship after 6 years continuous residency, or 3 if you're married to an American.
Certain federal benefits are only available to citizens, regardless of how long you've lived in the US on a green card - which is actually white with a blue stripe.
So assuming the place you lived last before arriving in the US wasn't where you were a national, we're talking about a minimum of 6 years of disfranchisement where you have no vote anywhere in the world.
I don't really understand why people think it's a good idea to prohibit people from voting like this. Just pick one basis or the other (nationality or residence) and stick to it. People who aren't interested in the country where they're allowed to vote won't bother voting. What's the problem the pro-disfranchisement people think they're solving?
British citizens living abroad can vote in UK Parliamentary and European Parliamentary elections but cannot vote in local elections or elections to devolved bodies such as the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales or Greater London Authority.
British citizens living abroad for more than 15 years are not eligible to register to vote in UK elections.
When I lived in Canada in the late 70s, because I was a UK citizen I could vote in Canadian elections. I was even a teller. I believe that has changed since then.
If unstable countries like Ukraine, Syria and Iraq can be independent, then why can't Scotland be independent?
They can be. The reality might be slightly at odds with what they have been promised though.
I think Sunil will appreciate the words of the Federation president at the Khitomer conference: "just because we can do a thing, does not mean we must do that thing".
I have both UK and US citizenship, and have lived in 5 countries, working in several more. Would that qualify me for honorary membership? I could use another card in my billfold.
You'd definitely qualify - in fact you should already have been contacted by a representative of the New World Order. It might be worth taking it up with your local Bilderberg office.
Laugh all you want but the central belt is turning towards Scottish nationalism, many of Labour's English and Welsh heartlands are completely disillusioned and the poorer Tory voting areas may be in revolt - let's see what happens in Clacton.
Anyone see the FT story about the Tories planning to give all expats the right to vote in UK elections. I wonder if they'll get that through in time for them all to vote to stay in the EU...
But in which constituency?
The last one they lived in as now (the change would be to lift the restriction on how long you get to vote for after leaving).
Ridiculous. Why should people who haven't lived here for 10, 20, 30 years and pay no tax here get a vote?
Because countries are very hung up about nationality, which is based on historical stuff about where you were born and where your parents are from, rather than practical stuff like where you live and who you pay taxes to.
IMHO a better system would be that you automatically have the vote wherever you're considered to live for tax purposes, but nationalistically-minded people don't seem to want to let people with foreign nationalities vote in their elections.
If you're going to do this by nationality, do it by nationality. The idea of democracy is that everybody gets to vote, not just people who stay in the same place for a long time.
The US lets you apply for citizenship after 6 years continuous residency, or 3 if you're married to an American.
Certain federal benefits are only available to citizens, regardless of how long you've lived in the US on a green card - which is actually white with a blue stripe.
You have to be on an immigrant or dual-intent visa, so my 5 years here count diddly-squat to getting permanent residence.
Anyone see the FT story about the Tories planning to give all expats the right to vote in UK elections. I wonder if they'll get that through in time for them all to vote to stay in the EU...
But in which constituency?
The last one they lived in as now (the change would be to lift the restriction on how long you get to vote for after leaving).
Ridiculous. Why should people who haven't lived here for 10, 20, 30 years and pay no tax here get a vote?
Because countries are very hung up about nationality, which is based on historical stuff about where you were born and where your parents are from, rather than practical stuff like where you live and who you pay taxes to.
IMHO a better system would be that you automatically have the vote wherever you're considered to live for tax purposes, but nationalistically-minded people don't seem to want to let people with foreign nationalities vote in their elections.
If you're going to do this by nationality, do it by nationality. The idea of democracy is that everybody gets to vote, not just people who stay in the same place for a long time.
The US lets you apply for citizenship after 6 years continuous residency, or 3 if you're married to an American.
Certain federal benefits are only available to citizens, regardless of how long you've lived in the US on a green card - which is actually white with a blue stripe.
So assuming the place you lived last before arriving in the US wasn't where you were a national, we're talking about a minimum of 6 years of disfranchisement where you have no vote anywhere in the world.
I don't really understand why people think it's a good idea to prohibit people from voting like this. Just pick one basis or the other (nationality or residence) and stick to it. People who aren't interested in the country where they're allowed to vote won't bother voting. What's the problem the pro-disfranchisement people think they're solving?
I'm sorry if people have lived in foreign countries for years and are still disenfranchised but no-one forced them to move there. If you choose to live in Saudi Arabia you know what you are getting into. I don't see why you should be able to continue voting in the UK long term.
We're not talking about moving to Saudi Arabia, we're talking about moving between modern, democratic countries. If you move between countries using the same principles the UK does, you lose the right to vote, while still being expected to pay tax.
Anyone see the FT story about the Tories planning to give all expats the right to vote in UK elections. I wonder if they'll get that through in time for them all to vote to stay in the EU...
But in which constituency?
The last one they lived in as now (the change would be to lift the restriction on how long you get to vote for after leaving).
Ridiculous. Why should people who haven't lived here for 10, 20, 30 years and pay no tax here get a vote?
Because countries are very hung up about nationality, which is based on historical stuff about where you were born and where your parents are from, rather than practical stuff like where you live and who you pay taxes to.
IMHO a better system would be that you automatically have the vote wherever you're considered to live for tax purposes, but nationalistically-minded people don't seem to want to let people with foreign nationalities vote in their elections.
If you're going to do this by nationality, do it by nationality. The idea of democracy is that everybody gets to vote, not just people who stay in the same place for a long time.
I'm sorry if people have lived in foreign countries for years and are still disenfranchised but no-one forced them to move there. If you choose to live in Saudi Arabia you know what you are getting into. I don't see why you should be able to continue voting in the UK long term.
We're not talking about moving to Saudi Arabia, we're talking about moving between modern, democratic countries. If you move between countries using the same principles the UK does, you lose the right to vote, while still being expected to pay tax.
If you move between countries using the same principles the UK does, you lose the right to vote, while still being expected to pay tax.
Not necessarily. I left a country with tighter restrictions on emigrants' voting rights (none!) but have a vote here in the UK. I dont think you can force all countries to adopt the same approach to voting rights. because they are all different (Ireland has a Northern Ireland problem) and are all entitled to take their own view anyway.
When I lived in Canada in the late 70s, because I was a UK citizen I could vote in Canadian elections. I was even a teller. I believe that has changed since then.
Right, and it's not obvious to me what damage was done to Canada by letting you vote and be a teller when you lived in Canada. Maybe FrankBooth can tell us.
I don't really see why what works for Commonwealth citizens wouldn't work for everybody. Just vote where you live. But like I say, if the nation people want to do nationality then whatever, as long as they're consistent about it.
Anyone see the FT story about the Tories planning to give all expats the right to vote in UK elections. I wonder if they'll get that through in time for them all to vote to stay in the EU...
But in which constituency?
The last one they lived in as now (the change would be to lift the restriction on how long you get to vote for after leaving).
Ridiculous. Why should people who haven't lived here for 10, 20, 30 years and pay no tax here get a vote?
Because countries are very hung up about nationality, which is based on historical stuff about where you were born and where your parents are from, rather than practical stuff like where you live and who you pay taxes to.
IMHO a better system would be that you automatically have the vote wherever you're considered to live for tax purposes, but nationalistically-minded people don't seem to want to let people with foreign nationalities vote in their elections.
If you're going to do this by nationality, do it by nationality. The idea of democracy is that everybody gets to vote, not just people who stay in the same place for a long time.
The US lets you apply for citizenship after 6 years continuous residency, or 3 if you're married to an American.
Certain federal benefits are only available to citizens, regardless of how long you've lived in the US on a green card - which is actually white with a blue stripe.
You have to be on an immigrant or dual-intent visa, so my 5 years here count diddly-squat to getting permanent residence.
What visa are you on Rob? When I came over some 30 years ago, I insisted on a Green Card as part of the deal. I didn't want to be tied to an employer, or have my wife not able to work.
Anyone see the FT story about the Tories planning to give all expats the right to vote in UK elections. I wonder if they'll get that through in time for them all to vote to stay in the EU...
But in which constituency?
The last one they lived in as now (the change would be to lift the restriction on how long you get to vote for after leaving).
Ridiculous. Why should people who haven't lived here for 10, 20, 30 years and pay no tax here get a vote?
Because countries are very hung up about nationality, which is based on historical stuff about where you were born and where your parents are from, rather than practical stuff like where you live and who you pay taxes to.
IMHO a better system would be that you automatically have the vote wherever you're considered to live for tax purposes, but nationalistically-minded people don't seem to want to let people with foreign nationalities vote in their elections.
If you're going to do this by nationality, do it by nationality. The idea of democracy is that everybody gets to vote, not just people who stay in the same place for a long time.
The US lets you apply for citizenship after 6 years continuous residency, or 3 if you're married to an American.
Certain federal benefits are only available to citizens, regardless of how long you've lived in the US on a green card - which is actually white with a blue stripe.
You have to be on an immigrant or dual-intent visa, so my 5 years here count diddly-squat to getting permanent residence.
What visa are you on Rob? When I came over some 30 years ago, I insisted on a Green Card as part of the deal. I didn't want to be tied to an employer, or have my wife not able to work.
An exchange (J1), probably should have asked for a H1-B when I got my new job!
Laugh all you want but the central belt is turning towards Scottish nationalism, many of Labour's English and Welsh heartlands are completely disillusioned and the poorer Tory voting areas may be in revolt - let's see what happens in Clacton.
No denying that, and arbitrary restrictions on the rights of immigrants - in this case British immigrants to other countries - may well be popular. But it doesn't make it good policy, and it won't do anything practical to help the people of Clacton.
When I lived in Canada in the late 70s, because I was a UK citizen I could vote in Canadian elections. I was even a teller. I believe that has changed since then.
Right, and it's not obvious to me what damage was done to Canada by letting you vote and be a teller when you lived in Canada. Maybe FrankBooth can tell us.
I don't really see why what works for Commonwealth citizens wouldn't work for everybody. Just vote where you live. But like I say, if the nation people want to do nationality then whatever, as long as they're consistent about it.
My main concern is people voting countries they've long left behind.
I doubt they'll get anything like 15%. What polls generally fail to take into account is 1) the possibility that a UKIP candidate will not even be available to vote for and 2) that even if a candidate is available then voting for them will be seen as anything other than a wasted vote. Generally people voting for a candidate that has no prospect of victory will make no difference to a Parliamentary seat because they wouldn't have voted for one of the realistic contenders anyway.
What is also likely is that, with the possibility of a very small number of minor exceptions, UKIP will pull in the most votes in seats where voting for them will make little difference. Where they attract votes in marginals most of the votes will probably be protest voters who wouldn't have voted for another party anyway.
UKIP fielded candidates in the vast majority of constituencies even in 2010. I would imagine the only exceptions this time might be a handful of seats in Scotland and maybe one or two in London which are complete write-offs for them.
Also, I'm not sure the "wasted vote" thing (and the implication that people will not vote for them because they'd want to take part in choosing the government) really works when most Kippers actively don't care who the government is.
If you move between countries using the same principles the UK does, you lose the right to vote, while still being expected to pay tax.
Not necessarily. I left a country with tighter restrictions on emigrants' voting rights (none!) but have a vote here in the UK. I dont think you can force all countries to adopt the same approach to voting rights. because they are all different (Ireland has a Northern Ireland problem) and are all entitled to take their own view anyway.
The UK has a special thing going with the Commonwealth. But most countries go by nationality anyway and I don't think many have a cut-off, so you don't have to do anything special here to end up with a reasonably sensible system. Like I say the 15-year cut-off is there because it was helpful to Labour, not for any rational policy reason.
There's an argument that you shouldn't be voting in multiple countries on fairness grounds, which you could solve saying you have to promise not to be registered to vote in national elections in another country (since voter registration is basically on the honesty system anyway). But the UK don't really seem to be bothered about that, as we see with Commonwealth citizens.
When I lived in Canada in the late 70s, because I was a UK citizen I could vote in Canadian elections. I was even a teller. I believe that has changed since then.
Right, and it's not obvious to me what damage was done to Canada by letting you vote and be a teller when you lived in Canada. Maybe FrankBooth can tell us.
I don't really see why what works for Commonwealth citizens wouldn't work for everybody. Just vote where you live. But like I say, if the nation people want to do nationality then whatever, as long as they're consistent about it.
My main concern is people voting countries they've long left behind.
Why don't you explain the actual harm I would cause by voting.
Anyone see the FT story about the Tories planning to give all expats the right to vote in UK elections. I wonder if they'll get that through in time for them all to vote to stay in the EU...
But in which constituency?
The last one they lived in as now (the change would be to lift the restriction on how long you get to vote for after leaving).
Ridiculous. Why should people who haven't lived here for 10, 20, 30 years and pay no tax here get a vote?
Because countries are very hung up about nationality, which is based on historical stuff about where you were born and where your parents are from, rather than practical stuff like where you live and who you pay taxes to.
IMHO a better system would be that you automatically have the vote wherever you're considered to live for tax purposes, but nationalistically-minded people don't seem to want to let people with foreign nationalities vote in their elections.
If you're going to do this by nationality, do it by nationality. The idea of democracy is that everybody gets to vote, not just people who stay in the same place for a long time.
The US lets you apply for citizenship after 6 years continuous residency, or 3 if you're married to an American.
Certain federal benefits are only available to citizens, regardless of how long you've lived in the US on a green card - which is actually white with a blue stripe.
You have to be on an immigrant or dual-intent visa, so my 5 years here count diddly-squat to getting permanent residence.
What visa are you on Rob? When I came over some 30 years ago, I insisted on a Green Card as part of the deal. I didn't want to be tied to an employer, or have my wife not able to work.
An exchange (J1), probably should have asked for a H1-B when I got my new job!
You need to speak to an immigration attorney if you wish to stay. Even going through the H1 process I needed an immigration attorney. It is a complex area of law.
I thought J1 was for stuff like summer camp counsellors!
When I lived in Canada in the late 70s, because I was a UK citizen I could vote in Canadian elections. I was even a teller. I believe that has changed since then.
Right, and it's not obvious to me what damage was done to Canada by letting you vote and be a teller when you lived in Canada. Maybe FrankBooth can tell us.
I don't really see why what works for Commonwealth citizens wouldn't work for everybody. Just vote where you live. But like I say, if the nation people want to do nationality then whatever, as long as they're consistent about it.
My main concern is people voting countries they've long left behind.
I'm registered to vote in the UK - does that make me your concern?
If you move between countries using the same principles the UK does, you lose the right to vote, while still being expected to pay tax.
Not necessarily. I left a country with tighter restrictions on emigrants' voting rights (none!) but have a vote here in the UK. I dont think you can force all countries to adopt the same approach to voting rights. because they are all different (Ireland has a Northern Ireland problem) and are all entitled to take their own view anyway.
The UK has a special thing going with the Commonwealth. But most countries go by nationality anyway and I don't think many have a cut-off, so you don't have to do anything special here to end up with a reasonably sensible system. Like I say the 15-year cut-off is there because it was helpful to Labour, not for any rational policy reason.
There's an argument that you shouldn't be voting in multiple countries on fairness grounds, which you could solve saying you have to promise not to be registered to vote in national elections in another country (since voter registration is basically on the honesty system anyway). But the UK don't really seem to be bothered about that, as we see with Commonwealth citizens.
But none of these are arguments for forcing all countries to adopt the same basis for establishing voting rights. One country may go with nationality because the vast majority of nationals are also resident and it makes no odds (or they just want to). Another country may go with residency because too many nationals live abroad and would skew the results (or they just want to). I dont see why the first country should change its basis for establishing voting rights simply because an immigrant from the second falls through the cracks.
Anyone see the FT story about the Tories planning to give all expats the right to vote in UK elections. I wonder if they'll get that through in time for them all to vote to stay in the EU...
But in which constituency?
The last one they lived in as now (the change would be to lift the restriction on how long you get to vote for after leaving).
Ridiculous. Why should people who haven't lived here for 10, 20, 30 years and pay no tax here get a vote?
Because countries are very hung up about nationality, which is based on historical stuff about where you were born and where your parents are from, rather than practical stuff like where you live and who you pay taxes to.
IMHO a better system would be that you automatically have the vote wherever you're considered to live for tax purposes, but nationalistically-minded people don't seem to want to let people with foreign nationalities vote in their elections.
If you're going to do this by nationality, do it by nationality. The idea of democracy is that everybody gets to vote, not just people who stay in the same place for a long time.
The US lets you apply for citizenship after 6 years continuous residency, or 3 if you're married to an American.
Certain federal benefits are only available to citizens, regardless of how long you've lived in the US on a green card - which is actually white with a blue stripe.
You have to be on an immigrant or dual-intent visa, so my 5 years here count diddly-squat to getting permanent residence.
What visa are you on Rob? When I came over some 30 years ago, I insisted on a Green Card as part of the deal. I didn't want to be tied to an employer, or have my wife not able to work.
An exchange (J1), probably should have asked for a H1-B when I got my new job!
You need to speak to an immigration attorney if you wish to stay. Even going through the H1 process I needed an immigration attorney. It is a complex area of law.
I thought J1 was for stuff like summer camp counsellors!
Haha, well those and academics! If I want to stay beyond this appointment, I'd *have* to get a H1-B, since a J1 is a max of 5 years. Saying that, I'm tempted to try and get a job in France for a few years (maybe while we are still in the EU!).
In his interview, Mr Miliband also mentioned his ‘personal connection’ with Scotland – his father, Ralph, was stationed at Inverkeithing, Fife, during the Second World War. ‘The rest of the UK would be much weaker without Scotland. It matters for reasons of heart and for head,’ he said.
If you move between countries using the same principles the UK does, you lose the right to vote, while still being expected to pay tax.
Not necessarily. I left a country with tighter restrictions on emigrants' voting rights (none!) but have a vote here in the UK. I dont think you can force all countries to adopt the same approach to voting rights. because they are all different (Ireland has a Northern Ireland problem) and are all entitled to take their own view anyway.
The UK has a special thing going with the Commonwealth. But most countries go by nationality anyway and I don't think many have a cut-off, so you don't have to do anything special here to end up with a reasonably sensible system. Like I say the 15-year cut-off is there because it was helpful to Labour, not for any rational policy reason.
There's an argument that you shouldn't be voting in multiple countries on fairness grounds, which you could solve saying you have to promise not to be registered to vote in national elections in another country (since voter registration is basically on the honesty system anyway). But the UK don't really seem to be bothered about that, as we see with Commonwealth citizens.
But none of these are arguments for forcing all countries to adopt the same basis for establishing voting rights. One country may go with nationality because the vast majority of nationals are also resident and it makes no odds (or they just want to). Another country may go with residency because too many nationals live abroad and would skew the results (or they just want to). I dont see why the first country should change its basis for establishing voting rights simply because an immigrant from the second falls through the cracks.
No, I didn't say they should be forced to do anything. But if they were at least internally consistent there wouldn't actually be a lot of cracks to fall through, since most countries just go by nationality anyway.
In his interview, Mr Miliband also mentioned his ‘personal connection’ with Scotland – his father, Ralph, was stationed at Inverkeithing, Fife, during the Second World War. ‘The rest of the UK would be much weaker without Scotland. It matters for reasons of heart and for head,’ he said.
"a secret memo drawn up by the Foreign Office in 2009 warned that a secure border would have to be established to protect the ‘remaining UK’ if an independent Scotland applied to join the EU"
Of course there has been no contingency planning by the civil service whatsoever.
Miliband should probably join Cameron and definitely Osborne in a secure facility until the referendum is over if 'no' wants to win.
Anyone see the FT story about the Tories planning to give all expats the right to vote in UK elections. I wonder if they'll get that through in time for them all to vote to stay in the EU...
But in which constituency?
The last one they lived in as now (the change would be to lift the restriction on how long you get to vote for after leaving).
Ridiculous. Why should people who haven't lived here for 10, 20, 30 years and pay no tax here get a vote?
The US lets you apply for citizenship after 6 years continuous residency, or 3 if you're married to an American.
Certain federal benefits are only available to citizens, regardless of how long you've lived in the US on a green card - which is actually white with a blue stripe.
You have to be on an immigrant or dual-intent visa, so my 5 years here count diddly-squat to getting permanent residence.
What visa are you on Rob? When I came over some 30 years ago, I insisted on a Green Card as part of the deal. I didn't want to be tied to an employer, or have my wife not able to work.
An exchange (J1), probably should have asked for a H1-B when I got my new job!
You need to speak to an immigration attorney if you wish to stay. Even going through the H1 process I needed an immigration attorney. It is a complex area of law.
I thought J1 was for stuff like summer camp counsellors!
Haha, well those and academics! If I want to stay beyond this appointment, I'd *have* to get a H1-B, since a J1 is a max of 5 years. Saying that, I'm tempted to try and get a job in France for a few years (maybe while we are still in the EU!).
Having worked in France, it is hard to imagine 2 civilized countries being more fundamentally different. France hates all things anglo-saxon. Also women here shave.
As an academic, by this point you have no doubt many contacts here, so getting an 'appointment' shouldn't be a problem. Once you have that, the visa process should be simple, providing you have skills etc in short supply in the US, which presumably is how you got here anyway.
A brit friend of mine was precisely a summer camp counsellor in upstate NY some years back and had a J1.
Having worked in France, it is hard to imagine 2 civilized countries being more fundamentally different. France hates all things anglo-saxon. Also women here shave.
As an academic, by this point you have no doubt many contacts here, so getting an 'appointment' shouldn't be a problem. Once you have that, the visa process should be simple, providing you have skills etc in short supply in the US, which presumably is how you got here anyway.
A brit friend of mine was precisely a summer camp counsellor in upstate NY some years back and had a J1.
Yep, it wouldn't be difficult if I wanted to change my status. I'm only on a fixed term at the moment, but if I got a more permanent position, then it would make much more sense to be on a H1-B (actually, I don't think you could be on a J1 with a permanent position).
I have a few collaborators in France, so I was thinking of applying for a juicy EU fellowship to do some interesting research there for a few years (thank you EU tax payers.. *evil laugh*)
If it's a "No", the Scots can blame the English.....
.......it it's a Yes, the English can blame the Germans (according to the Mail....)
German residents who will vote 'Ja' to independence could hold key to breaking up Britain - 120,000 EU citizens who live in Scotland can vote on future of the Union - They include 33,000 Poles, 13,000 Germans and 4,000 from France - Germany is particularly pro-EU, leading to tensions with Westminster - Germans For Scottish Independence has more than 1,000 Facebook fans
Having worked in France, it is hard to imagine 2 civilized countries being more fundamentally different. France hates all things anglo-saxon. Also women here shave.
As an academic, by this point you have no doubt many contacts here, so getting an 'appointment' shouldn't be a problem. Once you have that, the visa process should be simple, providing you have skills etc in short supply in the US, which presumably is how you got here anyway.
A brit friend of mine was precisely a summer camp counsellor in upstate NY some years back and had a J1.
Yep, it wouldn't be difficult if I wanted to change my status. I'm only on a fixed term at the moment, but if I got a more permanent position, then it would make much more sense to be on a H1-B (actually, I don't think you could be on a J1 with a permanent position).
I have a few collaborators in France, so I was thinking of applying for a juicy EU fellowship to do some interesting research there for a few years (thank you EU tax payers.. *evil laugh*)
Research such as why lingerie clings to women? Does the chiffon scarf test still work on Frenchist women who don't shave their legs? How many Frenchmen can't be wrong?
J1 isn't eligible if you have a permanent job. I think there are tax and FICA issues with J1 also.
In his interview, Mr Miliband also mentioned his ‘personal connection’ with Scotland – his father, Ralph, was stationed at Inverkeithing, Fife, during the Second World War. ‘The rest of the UK would be much weaker without Scotland. It matters for reasons of heart and for head,’ he said.
Miliband should probably join Cameron and definitely Osborne in a secure facility until the referendum is over if 'no' wants to win.
"My Dad served in Inverkeithing during the war" I thought particularly moving, absolutely convincing me of his close personal connection and deep involvement in the life of Scotland.....
Having worked in France, it is hard to imagine 2 civilized countries being more fundamentally different. France hates all things anglo-saxon. Also women here shave.
As an academic, by this point you have no doubt many contacts here, so getting an 'appointment' shouldn't be a problem. Once you have that, the visa process should be simple, providing you have skills etc in short supply in the US, which presumably is how you got here anyway.
A brit friend of mine was precisely a summer camp counsellor in upstate NY some years back and had a J1.
Yep, it wouldn't be difficult if I wanted to change my status. I'm only on a fixed term at the moment, but if I got a more permanent position, then it would make much more sense to be on a H1-B (actually, I don't think you could be on a J1 with a permanent position).
I have a few collaborators in France, so I was thinking of applying for a juicy EU fellowship to do some interesting research there for a few years (thank you EU tax payers.. *evil laugh*)
Research such as why lingerie clings to women? Does the chiffon scarf test still work on Frenchist women who don't shave their legs? How many Frenchmen can't be wrong?
J1 isn't eligible if you have a permanent job. I think there are tax and FICA issues with J1 also.
All important matters worthy of EU funding.
Yeah, I decided not to exempt myself from taxes, so I wouldn't get a huge bill if I stayed too long.
Comments
I see SO has actually already called the result for 'yes' now. That probably counts more than a week of you govs showing 'yes' ahead.
90% non Scottish. Following a Yes they will head south, as will the jobs. Now Scotland will survive no problem but it will be poorer post independence, that's the bit Salmond is keeping stumm about, and which is going to cause the grief post a Yes vote.
I got this feeling on the summer day when you were gone.
I crashed my car into the bridge. I watched, I let it burn.
I threw your shit into a bag and pushed it down the stairs.
I crashed my car into the bridge.
I don't care, I love it.
I don't care.
Polls show how over-60s vote will be vital in Scottish referendum
With a massive referendum turnout looming, the important trends to watch are which way women and older voters are leaning
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/yougov-polling-blog/2014/sep/07/scottish-independence-opinion-polls-yougov-over-60s-vote-is-vital
English pounds for English holiday resorts.
I'm thinking like a Nat. If I start chortling permission to shoot me.
All the righteous fiery anger about the iniquitous nature of Westminster rule, with its bankers and bail outs hoovering up Scotland's money and oil, but you're more than happy to remain under the authority of a corrupt venal, anti democratic elite in which Scotland has next to no say, that enforces every evil you rail against on its citizens ten times more than the UK does.
Doesn't make sense really does it?
IMHO a better system would be that you automatically have the vote wherever you're considered to live for tax purposes, but nationalistically-minded people don't seem to want to let people with foreign nationalities vote in their elections.
If you're going to do this by nationality, do it by nationality. The idea of democracy is that everybody gets to vote, not just people who stay in the same place for a long time.
Certain federal benefits are only available to citizens, regardless of how long you've lived in the US on a green card - which is actually white with a blue stripe.
(*) Although I admit I did just spend a month living in a different continent than usual for optimal weather, which feels quite decadent.
I was actually trying to wind up UKIP posters with the idea that Dave was trying to fix the EU referendum but none of them went for it!
What is also likely is that, with the possibility of a very small number of minor exceptions, UKIP will pull in the most votes in seats where voting for them will make little difference. Where they attract votes in marginals most of the votes will probably be protest voters who wouldn't have voted for another party anyway.
I don't really understand why people think it's a good idea to prohibit people from voting like this. Just pick one basis or the other (nationality or residence) and stick to it. People who aren't interested in the country where they're allowed to vote won't bother voting. What's the problem the pro-disfranchisement people think they're solving?
The irony of that is overwhelming - a man only in post because of the Union votes!
British citizens living abroad for more than 15 years are not eligible to register to vote in UK elections.
http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/faq/overseas_voters.aspx
When I lived in Canada in the late 70s, because I was a UK citizen I could vote in Canadian elections. I was even a teller. I believe that has changed since then.
I watched a college football game today - Mizzou at Toledo. All the Toledo fans had vuvuzelas.
I don't really see why what works for Commonwealth citizens wouldn't work for everybody. Just vote where you live. But like I say, if the nation people want to do nationality then whatever, as long as they're consistent about it.
Also, I'm not sure the "wasted vote" thing (and the implication that people will not vote for them because they'd want to take part in choosing the government) really works when most Kippers actively don't care who the government is.
Mick Betsch is Michael Schumacher's son. He races under his mother's maiden name. Mick's father used to be a team mentor. Sadly this year he isn't.
There's an argument that you shouldn't be voting in multiple countries on fairness grounds, which you could solve saying you have to promise not to be registered to vote in national elections in another country (since voter registration is basically on the honesty system anyway). But the UK don't really seem to be bothered about that, as we see with Commonwealth citizens.
I thought J1 was for stuff like summer camp counsellors!
In his interview, Mr Miliband also mentioned his ‘personal connection’ with Scotland – his father, Ralph, was stationed at Inverkeithing, Fife, during the Second World War. ‘The rest of the UK would be much weaker without Scotland. It matters for reasons of heart and for head,’ he said.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746369/We-ll-guards-Scottish-border-Ed-Miliband-reveals-incendiary-plan-new-poll-reveals-vote-knife-edge.html#ixzz3CaOXYkSU
Of course there has been no contingency planning by the civil service whatsoever.
Miliband should probably join Cameron and definitely Osborne in a secure facility until the referendum is over if 'no' wants to win.
As an academic, by this point you have no doubt many contacts here, so getting an 'appointment' shouldn't be a problem. Once you have that, the visa process should be simple, providing you have skills etc in short supply in the US, which presumably is how you got here anyway.
A brit friend of mine was precisely a summer camp counsellor in upstate NY some years back and had a J1.
I have a few collaborators in France, so I was thinking of applying for a juicy EU fellowship to do some interesting research there for a few years (thank you EU tax payers.. *evil laugh*)
I have a few collaborators in France
Well, that tells me you're not German, otherwise you'd have tens of thousands!
Edit: and whenever I say the word 'collaborator' I always want to say it in the 'Allo 'Allo style!
.......it it's a Yes, the English can blame the Germans (according to the Mail....)
German residents who will vote 'Ja' to independence could hold key to breaking up Britain
- 120,000 EU citizens who live in Scotland can vote on future of the Union
- They include 33,000 Poles, 13,000 Germans and 4,000 from France
- Germany is particularly pro-EU, leading to tensions with Westminster
- Germans For Scottish Independence has more than 1,000 Facebook fans
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746440/German-residents-vote-Ja-independence-hold-key-breaking-Britain.html#ixzz3CaVT1MUA
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
J1 isn't eligible if you have a permanent job. I think there are tax and FICA issues with J1 also.
Yeah, I decided not to exempt myself from taxes, so I wouldn't get a huge bill if I stayed too long.