Mr. Financier, perhaps. If they chose to divorce when she's on Mars one can only shudder at the horrendous P&P costs of sending out the decree absolute.
TBH, there are so many things wrong with Devolution that it's amazing that the English have been so quiescent about it for so long.
Well that dam has bust wide open now. I can't get over how much polite anger there is over the IndyRef from English posters all over the comment pages. Any politician going for appeasement will get a kick in the ballots.
Good.
The one good thing from the YES point of view, is the immense amount of damage and bad feeling this has caused here in England. I am beginning to think that if the referendum was nationwide then Scotland would be independent next week.
If they want to hold another referendum then they might be wise to cast the voting net wider.
I read a few anecdotal comments yesterday from those involved in the financial services/sales area and they said it was dead business wise - no one is calling to place an order. Just to cancel or query the terms of their policies.
I've been speaking with someone (Scot living in London) on another forum, unrelated to politics, who told me he has withdrawn all his money and investments from Scottish banks and institutions because he couldn't get sensible answers to a series of "what if" questions he'd been asking them for some time.
This guy is a big cheese in pharmaceuticals so we're talking quite a lot of money here I would think...
I can't imagine Scottish investment managers are picking up much, if any new business at the moment. No one of sound mind would hand over their savings now, and probably not in the future either.
I actually think that whereas constitutional reform has always languished down the bottom of the list of voter concerns, that is no longer the case now. 5m Scots have been electrified by the current debate, and England seems to have woken from its slumbers.
If it's a No, we're headed for a federal UK, I think there's no doubt about it, because that's the only logical destination on the current direction of travel (that all 3 parties are now signed up to, and which the Nats in Scotland and Wales ultimately wanted all along anyway).
Quite how that is going to work though with the possibility of a UK-wide administration setting overall policies which are at odds with whatever force emerges in England-alone, I don't know!
The only way you can have a balanced federation is to divide England into smaller units (the horror being these would probably be those stupid EU 'Regions' that group, for instance, Oxford and Dover together or Liverpool and Carlisle together for little reason other than that's where the line on the map was drawn). Whilst I can see this being OK for Greater London and potentially Yorkshire and the Humber and the North East, I'm not sure there's a strong enough regional identity to lump most into these groups. And counties are arguably too small a unit...
And aside from places like Cornwall and Yorkshire, I can't imagine there being too much enthusiasm for splitting England up into federal units. We also should remember John Prescott failed spectacularly at introducing regional assemblies, although granted time has moved on now and this was before the current Scottish developments...
Even if you did carve England up is the ( virtually permanently Tory with a UKIP opposition?) SE Region Parliament going to be able to vary income tax in the same way that Scotland can? And what happens when the push taxes down (as they will)? We could have tax completion between different parts of the island of Great Britain. It's Balkanisation writ small if we are not very careful.
The trouble with a federation that splits out London is that London votes Labour. So you'd have the acute problem that the cash generator of the UK economy would potentially be subjected to envy taxes voted for by people who couldn't care less if this does a Francois Hollande to London, because as a class they themselves are always takers rather than payers of tax. If this killed the City they'd just demand that someone else they envy be taxed instead.
If we get an English Parliament with the same powers as a DevoMax Scotland we then have the very real problem of what the UK government is for other than foreign policy and defence. At that point it seems a little bit wasteful to have all those MPs sat at Westminster twiddling their thumbs until the next crisis blows up... And a UK PM would essentially be stripped of any authority on the domestic stage, being someone we wheel out occasionally for EU summits (assuming we stay in) and the odd photo op with the US President.
If Scotland really does get significant new powers in the tax and spend sphere, rather than DevoMax doesn't this really become CurrencyUnionPlus? Not sure why Salmonds really that bothered about independence now, looks like we'll gift him what he wants if everyone votes no...
John Redwood's idea is to make the 'English parliament' a subset of Westminster. This could lead to a Labour government with English Tory secretaries of state for all the domestic spending departments.
For Labour the chickens must be made to come home to roost. In 1997 we had a quaint but essentially robust constitution. Through self-serving piecemeal tinkering it has been reduced to absurdity.
A Devolved Matters Equal Voting Act would resolve all.
Perhaps you could clarify how that would work?
All votes in the HoC are assessed by the Speaker - ALL MPs can vote on non-devolved matters (defence, foreign, DFID, Finance Bill, etc). For devolved matters only MPs from the relevant affected geography can vote. In practice this would often translate to English only (health, policing, agriculture, education, etc). Sometimes it would translate to England and Wales (jurisprudence, etc).
But note: This only would create an effectively federal legislature. It would NOT create a federal executive (English government). (And note those campaigning for an English Parliament are less vocal about an English Government also - ie full devolution for England)Fully devolved Departments (education, health, etc) would become then effectively English only.
This horrifies Westminster because it might mean 'the Government' could effectively have no control over the big sexy departments. It means 'Westminster' loses a huge amount of power to England. But..if England's legislature is the body of English Westminster MPs then so what? The English Parliament (either full and formal or via a Voting Act) would still sit in the House (and the facilities would be shared between the federal House and the English House). No point in wasting money creating a new one in Kidderminster or wherever.
Just recognise and empower England. It's that simple.
If we get an English Parliament with the same powers as a DevoMax Scotland we then have the very real problem of what the UK government is for other than foreign policy and defence. At that point it seems a little bit wasteful to have all those MPs sat at Westminster twiddling their thumbs until the next crisis blows up... And a UK PM would essentially be stripped of any authority on the domestic stage, being someone we wheel out occasionally for EU summits (assuming we stay in) and the odd photo op with the US President.
If Scotland really does get significant new powers in the tax and spend sphere, rather than DevoMax doesn't this really become CurrencyUnionPlus? Not sure why Salmonds really that bothered about independence now, looks like we'll gift him what he wants if everyone votes no...
John Redwood's idea is to make the 'English parliament' a subset of Westminster. This could lead to a Labour government with English Tory secretaries of state for all the domestic spending departments.
For Labour the chickens must be made to come home to roost. In 1997 we had a quaint but essentially robust constitution. Through self-serving piecemeal tinkering it has be reduced to absurdity.
That seems a bit unwieldy.. You'd probably have to have two Home Secretaries and two Chancellors for a start...
I actually think that whereas constitutional reform has always languished down the bottom of the list of voter concerns, that is no longer the case now. 5m Scots have been electrified by the current debate, and England seems to have woken from its slumbers.
If it's a No, we're headed for a federal UK, I think there's no doubt about it, because that's the only logical destination on the current direction of travel (that all 3 parties are now signed up to, and which the Nats in Scotland and Wales ultimately wanted all along anyway).
Quite how that is going to work though with the possibility of a UK-wide administration setting overall policies which are at odds with whatever force emerges in England-alone, I don't know!
The only way you can have a balanced federation is to divide England into smaller units (the horror being these would probably be those stupid EU 'Regions' that group, for instance, Oxford and Dover together or Liverpool and Carlisle together for little reason other than that's where the line on the map was drawn). Whilst I can see this being OK for Greater London and potentially Yorkshire and the Humber and the North East, I'm not sure there's a strong enough regional identity to lump most into these groups. And counties are arguably too small a unit...
And aside from places like Cornwall and Yorkshire, I can't imagine there being too much enthusiasm for splitting England up into federal units. We also should remember John Prescott failed spectacularly at introducing regional assemblies, although granted time has moved on now and this was before the current Scottish developments...
Even if you did carve England up is the ( virtually permanently Tory with a UKIP opposition?) SE Region Parliament going to be able to vary income tax in the same way that Scotland can? And what happens when the push taxes down (as they will)? We could have tax completion between different parts of the island of Great Britain. It's Balkanisation writ small if we are not very careful.
The trouble with a federation that splits out London is that London votes Labour. So you'd have the acute problem that the cash generator of the UK economy would potentially be subjected to envy taxes voted for by people who couldn't care less if this does a Francois Hollande to London, because as a class they themselves are always takers rather than payers of tax. If this killed the City they'd just demand that someone else they envy be taxed instead.
It's impossible however to separate London from the South East. If you had that, all the wealth generators (banks etc) would pick up sticks and move their headquarters to Surrey.
Guildford would become the richest town in the country.
I read a few anecdotal comments yesterday from those involved in the financial services/sales area and they said it was dead business wise - no one is calling to place an order. Just to cancel or query the terms of their policies.
I've been speaking with someone (Scot living in London) on another forum, unrelated to politics, who told me he has withdrawn all his money and investments from Scottish banks and institutions because he couldn't get sensible answers to a series of "what if" questions he'd been asking them for some time.
This guy is a big cheese in pharmaceuticals so we're talking quite a lot of money here I would think...
I can't imagine Scottish investment managers are picking up much, if any new business at the moment. No one of sound mind would hand over their savings now, and probably not in the future either.
The capital flight south, must be horrendous.
Many of those will be thinking of upping sticks and heading elsewhere - the canny ones have probably already done so.
The usual suspects will pop up and shout 'bye bye to all those windy fannies', but iScotland will find it difficult to pay it's way on the revenues that Short Order cooks such as malcolmg can generate.
TBH, there are so many things wrong with Devolution that it's amazing that the English have been so quiescent about it for so long.
Well that dam has bust wide open now. I can't get over how much polite anger there is over the IndyRef from English posters all over the comment pages. Any politician going for appeasement will get a kick in the ballots.
Very interesting point about English students. Not something I'd considered.
I have a niece who lives in England but has (through her father) an Irish passport. She is going to a Scottish uni for free, yet my daughter's friend at the same Scottish uni has to pay.
I have never understood why this is not classed as racism.
I do appreciate that that particular issue is upsetting but it is very widely misunderstood (one might have one's suspicions about certain newspapers). But really it is simply that Scots decide to spend money differently, is about the strength of that particular issue.
It's fine if it's Scottish money they're spending. The problem comes when they want more.
If we get an English Parliament with the same powers as a DevoMax Scotland we then have the very real problem of what the UK government is for other than foreign policy and defence. At that point it seems a little bit wasteful to have all those MPs sat at Westminster twiddling their thumbs until the next crisis blows up... And a UK PM would essentially be stripped of any authority on the domestic stage, being someone we wheel out occasionally for EU summits (assuming we stay in) and the odd photo op with the US President.
If Scotland really does get significant new powers in the tax and spend sphere, rather than DevoMax doesn't this really become CurrencyUnionPlus? Not sure why Salmonds really that bothered about independence now, looks like we'll gift him what he wants if everyone votes no...
John Redwood's idea is to make the 'English parliament' a subset of Westminster. This could lead to a Labour government with English Tory secretaries of state for all the domestic spending departments.
For Labour the chickens must be made to come home to roost. In 1997 we had a quaint but essentially robust constitution. Through self-serving piecemeal tinkering it has be reduced to absurdity.
That seems a bit unwieldy.. You'd probably have to have two Home Secretaries and two Chancellors for a start...
It is of course absurd. But it is absurdity with which we must now deal.
So... Valium associated with getting Alzheimer's. I know some care workers, who tell me all their old ladies are on Diazepam. If the link is causal what little respect for GPs there is will completely vanish, they will become the most hated people in the country.
I think you're right. The tone has completely changed over the last few months.
The antipathy is palpable. Under any given article, a small proportion are pro-SNP/but mainly rude about the English/Tories - one or two are *let's still be friends* and the other 90% are Good Riddance, please vote Yes.
It wasn't at all like this even 3 months ago. It was much more conciliatory/we'll be sad to see you go...
I really don't think the SNP understand what they've done. Or if they do - they don't care a jot. Well, that'll come back to bite them on the arse, whatever English politicos think they can get away with = the public won't let them.
TBH, there are so many things wrong with Devolution that it's amazing that the English have been so quiescent about it for so long.
Well that dam has bust wide open now. I can't get over how much polite anger there is over the IndyRef from English posters all over the comment pages. Any politician going for appeasement will get a kick in the ballots.
Good.
The one good thing from the YES point of view, is the immense amount of damage and bad feeling this has caused here in England. I am beginning to think that if the referendum was nationwide then Scotland would be independent next week.
If they want to hold another referendum then they might be wise to cast the voting net wider.
Very interesting point about English students. Not something I'd considered.
I have a niece who lives in England but has (through her father) an Irish passport. She is going to a Scottish uni for free, yet my daughter's friend at the same Scottish uni has to pay.
I have never understood why this is not classed as racism.
It's a common, if understandable, error. The distinction is simply because it is based on residence, for UK nationals. Someone resident, even if Scottish born, in England gets £0 of tuition fees. Someone resident in Scotland, even if English born, in Scotland gets tuition fees. Those were always the rules for decades - the only change is that Westminster changed the thermostat to zero and the Scots did not follow suit but foun the money from elsewhere in their block allocation.
My niece lives in Cheshire. She is as English as Cheshire Cheese. Someone is paying all her bills because of that Irish passport.
But you tell me that she has chosen to be of Irish nationality for the purposes of university education. The sense in which you use English is, in any case, invalid, English and Scottish being administratively unusable for that purpose - only UK nationality and place of residence are definable and therefore useable. (Compare the problems when defining the referendum franchise n a way acceptable to international norms of such indyrefs.)
Also, that bill is coming out of the Scottish taxpayer's pocket (or at least the bit returned to the Scottish exchequer). I wouldn't dream of complaining about that, but I might suggest that it could possibly be seen a little over-generous to have to pay as well for a second lass, English as the two together may seem when you meet them, if Scottish children could not expect grants out of what is effectively the English budget.
The Eu rules are in any case how it worked before - an arrangement to which the UK agreed as a whole - and nothing to do with what the Scots decided under devolution.
(And not all her bills, surely. Just the tuition fees?)
"The Better Together (BT) campaign has been seizing on that Times Higher Education poll (see here) saying that University academics and staff in Scotland are more likely to oppose independence than to support it.
A statement just issued by BT has quotes from Professor Hugh Pennington, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology at the University of Aberdeen, who said:
With just days to go until we make the most important decision in Scotland’s history, we still don’t know how our world-class universities would be paid for. This is a risk we just don’t have to take.
To settle for less than being a global leader in education is selling Scotland short and that is why we should say ‘No Thanks’ to separation."
Even the academics are not keen on Salmond's fantasy economic plans.
I actually think that whereas constitutional reform has always languished down the bottom of the list of voter concerns, that is no longer the case now. 5m Scots have been electrified by the current debate, and England seems to have woken from its slumbers.
If it's a No, we're headed for a federal UK, I think there's no doubt about it, because that's the only logical destination on the current direction of travel (that all 3 parties are now signed up to, and which the Nats in Scotland and Wales ultimately wanted all along anyway).
Quite how that is going to work though with the possibility of a UK-wide administration setting overall policies which are at odds with whatever force emerges in England-alone, I don't know!
The only way you can have a balanced federation is to divide England into smaller units (the horror being these would probably be those stupid EU 'Regions' that group, for instance, Oxford and Dover together or Liverpool and Carlisle together for little reason other than that's where the line on the map was drawn). Whilst I can see this being OK for Greater London and potentially Yorkshire and the Humber and the North East, I'm not sure there's a strong enough regional identity to lump most into these groups. And counties are arguably too small a unit...
And aside from places like Cornwall and Yorkshire, I can't imagine there being too much enthusiasm for splitting England up into federal units. We also should remember John Prescott failed spectacularly at introducing regional assemblies, although granted time has moved on now and this was before the current Scottish developments...
Even if you did carve England up is the ( virtually permanently Tory with a UKIP opposition?) SE Region Parliament going to be able to vary income tax in the same way that Scotland can? And what happens when the push taxes down (as they will)? We could have tax completion between different parts of the island of Great Britain. It's Balkanisation writ small if we are not very careful.
The trouble with a federation that splits out London is that London votes Labour. So you'd have the acute problem that the cash generator of the UK economy would potentially be subjected to envy taxes voted for by people who couldn't care less if this does a Francois Hollande to London, because as a class they themselves are always takers rather than payers of tax. If this killed the City they'd just demand that someone else they envy be taxed instead.
It's a bit too simplistic to say 'London votes Labour' - London has voted for Boris twice!
"The Better Together (BT) campaign has been seizing on that Times Higher Education poll (see here) saying that University academics and staff in Scotland are more likely to oppose independence than to support it.
A statement just issued by BT has quotes from Professor Hugh Pennington, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology at the University of Aberdeen, who said:
With just days to go until we make the most important decision in Scotland’s history, we still don’t know how our world-class universities would be paid for. This is a risk we just don’t have to take.
To settle for less than being a global leader in education is selling Scotland short and that is why we should say ‘No Thanks’ to separation."
Even the academics are not keen on Salmond's fantasy economic plans.
At some point between now and the vote, could Eck stop turning his back on unwelcome enquiries at a press Q & A, and totally lose it?
"The Better Together (BT) campaign has been seizing on that Times Higher Education poll (see here) saying that University academics and staff in Scotland are more likely to oppose independence than to support it.
A statement just issued by BT has quotes from Professor Hugh Pennington, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology at the University of Aberdeen, who said:
With just days to go until we make the most important decision in Scotland’s history, we still don’t know how our world-class universities would be paid for. This is a risk we just don’t have to take.
To settle for less than being a global leader in education is selling Scotland short and that is why we should say ‘No Thanks’ to separation."
Even the academics are not keen on Salmond's fantasy economic plans.
At some point between now and the vote, could Eck stop turning his back on unwelcome enquiries at a press Q & A, and totally lose it?
You mean like the three Scottish party leaders used a cheerleader at Dynamic Earth?
If we get an English Parliament with the same powers as a DevoMax Scotland we then have the very real problem of what the UK government is for other than foreign policy and defence. At that point it seems a little bit wasteful to have all those MPs sat at Westminster twiddling their thumbs until the next crisis blows up... And a UK PM would essentially be stripped of any authority on the domestic stage, being someone we wheel out occasionally for EU summits (assuming we stay in) and the odd photo op with the US President.
If Scotland really does get significant new powers in the tax and spend sphere, rather than DevoMax doesn't this really become CurrencyUnionPlus? Not sure why Salmonds really that bothered about independence now, looks like we'll gift him what he wants if everyone votes no...
John Redwood's idea is to make the 'English parliament' a subset of Westminster. This could lead to a Labour government with English Tory secretaries of state for all the domestic spending departments.
For Labour the chickens must be made to come home to roost. In 1997 we had a quaint but essentially robust constitution. Through self-serving piecemeal tinkering it has be reduced to absurdity.
That seems a bit unwieldy.. You'd probably have to have two Home Secretaries and two Chancellors for a start...
Not really. A Home Secretary's powers would not stretch to devolved matters. There might be a small rump for cross national police co-ordination or federal crime agencies etc - but 'Home Secretary' wouldn't really be a big job anymore. Police and Prisons Minister for England might.
Chancellors would get to determine overall budgets etc. Devolved spending departments would get to decide how they spend their allocation - NOT how much to spend. The UK chancellor would remain in overall control of tax and borrowing and spending limits. Devolved departments (or countries) would control how they spend what they are allocated (but would only receive from No11 / general UK wide taxation what they are allocated - similar to existing block grant to Scotland). We could additionally allow devolved countries to tax and spend more locally (this is the current Devomax extended offer) - but, crucially, not to borrow (otherwise UK chancellor loses control of overall UK finances).
It's actually simple enough -but a giant headache for politicians to accept the transfer of powers. Many English political jobs (health, education, etc) would be much bigger than some federal UK ones (rump non-devolved Home Secretary). Suck it up. England exists.
"The Better Together (BT) campaign has been seizing on that Times Higher Education poll (see here) saying that University academics and staff in Scotland are more likely to oppose independence than to support it.
A statement just issued by BT has quotes from Professor Hugh Pennington, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology at the University of Aberdeen, who said:
With just days to go until we make the most important decision in Scotland’s history, we still don’t know how our world-class universities would be paid for. This is a risk we just don’t have to take.
To settle for less than being a global leader in education is selling Scotland short and that is why we should say ‘No Thanks’ to separation."
Even the academics are not keen on Salmond's fantasy economic plans.
At some point between now and the vote, could Eck stop turning his back on unwelcome enquiries at a press Q & A, and totally lose it?
You mean like the three Scottish party leaders used a cheerleader at Dynamic Earth?
...The most striking part of the conversation came, inevitably, at the end. One after another, people in our debate told me how British meant little or nothing to them. They had no great desire to wrap themselves in an identity that encompasses the English and Welsh. Even some of those in the No camp. And that is the bit Prime Minister David Cameron, Labour leader Ed Miliband and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg don’t seem to have understood. There is a complete mismatch in their arguments. As the party leaders travelled up from London to love-bomb Scotland with talk of British history, a family of nations, common bonds and aspirations, it seemed many here just didn’t know what these men were going on about. Scottishness is something too many English don’t get, because we feel British. Our identity includes Scotland. For the Scots, even many of those who would rather stay in the Union, their identity is something quite different. And all the talk of this being irreversible, drastic, tragic and heartbreaking doesn’t seem to have much effect. It may feel like the time for emotion, with the possible breakup of Britain seemingly real and close. But the emotion from those voting Yes is optimism. As we saw on Wednesday, the teenagers here aren't interested in nostalgia and sentimentality.'
Mr. Patrick, spot on, but I fear that's why Westminster will either try and go for English votes on English matters (a step in the right direction) or carving up England (indefensible and completely moronic given what is happening with the Scottish Parliament leading to an independence referendum).
@Morris_Dancer Since bad things only happen under a Labour government, would you have been happier if Britain had been a two party state, Whigs and Tories?
"The Better Together (BT) campaign has been seizing on that Times Higher Education poll (see here) saying that University academics and staff in Scotland are more likely to oppose independence than to support it.
A statement just issued by BT has quotes from Professor Hugh Pennington, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology at the University of Aberdeen, who said:
With just days to go until we make the most important decision in Scotland’s history, we still don’t know how our world-class universities would be paid for. This is a risk we just don’t have to take.
To settle for less than being a global leader in education is selling Scotland short and that is why we should say ‘No Thanks’ to separation."
Even the academics are not keen on Salmond's fantasy economic plans.
Prof Pennington using the word 'separation' is a bit of a give-away. As is the 'Emeritus'.
As for the poll, is it a voodoo poll? And even then it shows quite a mixed story - I was surprised how mixed, which may imply small sample sizes or local campaigns, as well as the subject balance.
I've been speaking with someone (Scot living in London) on another forum, unrelated to politics, who told me he has withdrawn all his money and investments from Scottish banks and institutions because he couldn't get sensible answers to a series of "what if" questions he'd been asking them for some time.
This guy is a big cheese in pharmaceuticals so we're talking quite a lot of money here I would think...
I can't imagine Scottish investment managers are picking up much, if any new business at the moment. No one of sound mind would hand over their savings now, and probably not in the future either.
Scotland's pensions industry is totally screwed. The capital flight south, must be horrendous.
Watcher is doing voluntary work for his JSA benefits and has decided to be a Financial Advisor.
The trouble with a federation that splits out London is that London votes Labour. So you'd have the acute problem that the cash generator of the UK economy would potentially be subjected to envy taxes voted for by people who couldn't care less if this does a Francois Hollande to London, because as a class they themselves are always takers rather than payers of tax. If this killed the City they'd just demand that someone else they envy be taxed instead.
It's impossible however to separate London from the South East. If you had that, all the wealth generators (banks etc) would pick up sticks and move their headquarters to Surrey.
Guildford would become the richest town in the country.
If you had a federation it would be completely foolish to separate out London from the home counties. They're already talking about giving Boris control of the commuter lines because the transport systems are so integrated, large chunks of Surrey, Kent, Essex and Hertfordshire are joined up to the London built up area, and even larger chunks are in London's travel to work area. The existing regional system makes no sense either: why on Earth are Herts and Beds thrown in with Norfolk when all their transport links run north-south? The old statistical region for the South East made far more sense:
I actually think that whereas constitutional reform has always languished down the bottom of the list of voter concerns, that is no longer the case now. 5m Scots have been electrified by the current debate, and England seems to have woken from its slumbers.
If it's a No, we're headed for a federal UK, I think there's no doubt about it, because that's the only logical destination on the current direction of travel (that all 3 parties are now signed up to, and which the Nats in Scotland and Wales ultimately wanted all along anyway).
Quite how that is going to work though with the possibility of a UK-wide administration setting overall policies which are at odds with whatever force emerges in England-alone, I don't know!
.
Even if you did carve England up is the ( virtually permanently Tory with a UKIP opposition?) SE Region Parliament going to be able to vary income tax in the same way that Scotland can? And what happens when the push taxes down (as they will)? We could have tax completion between different parts of the island of Great Britain. It's Balkanisation writ small if we are not very careful.
The trouble with a federation that splits out London is that London votes Labour. So you'd have the acute problem that the cash generator of the UK economy would potentially be subjected to envy taxes voted for by people who couldn't care less if this does a Francois Hollande to London, because as a class they themselves are always takers rather than payers of tax. If this killed the City they'd just demand that someone else they envy be taxed instead.
It's a bit too simplistic to say 'London votes Labour' - London has voted for Boris twice!
Yes, but one can observe quite easily that votes are cast differently according to the significance of the post(s) voted on, and of course the voting system itself.
A party such as UKIP can do well in Euro elections where the MEP elected makes literally absolutely no difference whatsoever to anything at all; you could elect the UltraSubmissive Federast Have Your Way With Britain Party or UKIP and literally nothing would ensue differently in any way at all.
UKIP do less well in aggregate in council elections, where they may be allowed near actual money, or schools, or stuff that's important. They do less well still in GEs where they may be allowed near even more important things like the public finances or Britain's international standing. I pick UKIP as the obvious example, but it applies to other parties, eg Respect and the BNP, and to other elections (the Mayoral one you cite).
This is how you have a London with a Tory mayor and a majority of Labour MPs off the same electorate.
"The Better Together (BT) campaign has been seizing on that Times Higher Education poll (see here) saying that University academics and staff in Scotland are more likely to oppose independence than to support it.
A statement just issued by BT has quotes from Professor Hugh Pennington, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology at the University of Aberdeen, who said:
With just days to go until we make the most important decision in Scotland’s history, we still don’t know how our world-class universities would be paid for. This is a risk we just don’t have to take.
To settle for less than being a global leader in education is selling Scotland short and that is why we should say ‘No Thanks’ to separation."
Even the academics are not keen on Salmond's fantasy economic plans.
At some point between now and the vote, could Eck stop turning his back on unwelcome enquiries at a press Q & A, and totally lose it?
You mean like the three Scottish party leaders used a cheerleader at Dynamic Earth?
?
Sorry: should ave been clearer. The sketchwriter I read commented on how when the questioning got difficult the cheerleader standing behind the cameras waved to the supporters with their No boards and they all cheered, prompt for the three leaders to turn around and walk away. Can't remember where I read that, I;ve read so much lately!
All votes in the HoC are assessed by the Speaker - ALL MPs can vote on non-devolved matters (defence, foreign, DFID, Finance Bill, etc). For devolved matters only MPs from the relevant affected geography can vote. In practice this would often translate to English only (health, policing, agriculture, education, etc). Sometimes it would translate to England and Wales (jurisprudence, etc).
So then, rather like the "ultimate subsidiarity" scenario I mentioned.
But note: This only would create an effectively federal legislature. It would NOT create a federal executive (English government). (And note those campaigning for an English Parliament are less vocal about an English Government also - ie full devolution for England)Fully devolved Departments (education, health, etc) would become then effectively English only. .... Just recognise and empower England. It's that simple.
I agree, but I would go further and say that there would be no need for ANY devolved government.
I read a few anecdotal comments yesterday from those involved in the financial services/sales area and they said it was dead business wise - no one is calling to place an order. Just to cancel or query the terms of their policies.
I've been speaking with someone (Scot living in London) on another forum, unrelated to politics, who told me he has withdrawn all his money and investments from Scottish banks and institutions because he couldn't get sensible answers to a series of "what if" questions he'd been asking them for some time.
This guy is a big cheese in pharmaceuticals so we're talking quite a lot of money here I would think...
I can't imagine Scottish investment managers are picking up much, if any new business at the moment. No one of sound mind would hand over their savings now, and probably not in the future either.
The capital flight south, must be horrendous.
Many of those will be thinking of upping sticks and heading elsewhere - the canny ones have probably already done so.
The usual suspects will pop up and shout 'bye bye to all those windy fannies', but iScotland will find it difficult to pay it's way on the revenues that Short Order cooks such as malcolmg can generate.
It's not just finance. There's no investment coming into Scotland for any UK market business. That's across all industry sectors
Very interesting point about English students. Not something I'd considered.
I have a niece who lives in England but has (through her father) an Irish passport. She is going to a Scottish uni for free, yet my daughter's friend at the same Scottish uni has to pay.
I have never understood why this is not classed as racism.
The greedy zombies are out in force now. Wah Wah I want something for nothing but if you are Scottish we charge you £9K a year. Are you right in the head.
Bingley in West Yorkshire lost the HQ building for Bradford and Bingley bank in 2008 during the banking crisis, it is now a sainsbury`s many lost their jobs
So without a currency union a few HQ`s will move, especially to be risk averse against another crisis. However there will be a deal,if there is a yes vote, whatever they say, to avoid another crisis.
Err no. The financial sector is about more than banking. There is a huge pension industry in Scotland which has about 90+% of its business on the other side of the border, given pensions are such a minefield of legislation I really can't see this staying where it is so the office jobs go too.
This is what I was pointing out last night in microcosm. Our company pension funds and actuarial services are both based in Edinburgh and we will have to pull the plug and move them (unless they are moved for us as Std Life is of course saying it will) as we simply cannot have such complex legal and regulatory set ups based in a foreign country. End of. No debate. An Irish actuary with the world's greatest track record and exemplary qualifications could offer their services to us for next to nothing and we would still say no if they were based in Dublin, precisely because we need the reassurance of being in the same ongoing legal framework as the pensions will be paid in. It's not "scaremongering", it's not "bullying", it's the truth and ordinary people's future's rely on it.
Stick your £20 up your erchie you wittering dimwit
Anyone know if Andy Burnham is one of the 100 Labour MPs being shunted up north in a sealed train to start the Labour revolution? Would be fascinating to hear his views on the NHS.
Morning all. I think we should take a leaf out of the EU's book. If Scotland votes no, we should simply require them to repeat the exercise until they vote correctly, i.e. yes.
Oh dear, the Nats seem just a little bit upset this morning, verging on the unbalanced.
I guess the Sheffield Rally victory party didn't go so well...
Trolling 24/7 with the same lines, over and over again. Here's Bobajob's challenge: compose a post of 4-5 sentences on a topic of your choice. This must be your own opinion, not the drivel if others. Let's see if you can do it.
I read a few anecdotal comments yesterday from those involved in the financial services/sales area and they said it was dead business wise - no one is calling to place an order. Just to cancel or query the terms of their policies.
I've been speaking with someone (Scot living in London) on another forum, unrelated to politics, who told me he has withdrawn all his money and investments from Scottish banks and institutions because he couldn't get sensible answers to a series of "what if" questions he'd been asking them for some time.
This guy is a big cheese in pharmaceuticals so we're talking quite a lot of money here I would think...
I can't imagine Scottish investment managers are picking up much, if any new business at the moment. No one of sound mind would hand over their savings now, and probably not in the future either.
The capital flight south, must be horrendous.
LOL, amoeba's are communicating with each other. Are Plato and watcher two cheeks of the same arse or just two arses
I think you're right. The tone has completely changed over the last few months.
The antipathy is palpable. Under any given article, a small proportion are pro-SNP/but mainly rude about the English/Tories - one or two are *let's still be friends* and the other 90% are Good Riddance, please vote Yes.
It wasn't at all like this even 3 months ago. It was much more conciliatory/we'll be sad to see you go...
I really don't think the SNP understand what they've done. Or if they do - they don't care a jot. Well, that'll come back to bite them on the arse, whatever English politicos think they can get away with = the public won't let them.
TBH, there are so many things wrong with Devolution that it's amazing that the English have been so quiescent about it for so long.
Well that dam has bust wide open now. I can't get over how much polite anger there is over the IndyRef from English posters all over the comment pages. Any politician going for appeasement will get a kick in the ballots.
Good.
The one good thing from the YES point of view, is the immense amount of damage and bad feeling this has caused here in England. I am beginning to think that if the referendum was nationwide then Scotland would be independent next week.
If they want to hold another referendum then they might be wise to cast the voting net wider.
Oh dear, the Nats seem just a little bit upset this morning, verging on the unbalanced.
I guess the Sheffield Rally victory party didn't go so well...
Trolling 24/7 with the same lines, over and over again. Here's Bobajob's challenge: compose a post of 4-5 sentences on a topic of your choice. This must be your own opinion, not the drivel if others. Let's see if you can do it.
Bobafett made that challenge too...
It's the kind of thing 'Reggie' was fond of as well.
"The Better Together (BT) campaign has been seizing on that Times Higher Education poll (see here) saying that University academics and staff in Scotland are more likely to oppose independence than to support it.
A statement just issued by BT has quotes from Professor Hugh Pennington, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology at the University of Aberdeen, who said:
With just days to go until we make the most important decision in Scotland’s history, we still don’t know how our world-class universities would be paid for. This is a risk we just don’t have to take.
To settle for less than being a global leader in education is selling Scotland short and that is why we should say ‘No Thanks’ to separation."
Even the academics are not keen on Salmond's fantasy economic plans.
The accused was clearly not candid with the court when he said he did not want to shoot anyone, as he had a loaded firearm and was ready to shoot, the judge says.
Good spot by the judge - seems she is being very thorough !
Anyone know if Andy Burnham is one of the 100 Labour MPs being shunted up north in a sealed train to start the Labour revolution? Would be fascinating to hear his views on the NHS.
Me too. Not just on privatization and TTIp, but also on doing things differently in the NHS at all - which hrather misses the point of devolution (his party's policy):
“I would feel really genuinely sad if Scotland votes for independence, not just for our own self-interest and in the extra difficulty we would face getting a Labour government in England but I also don’t want to drive up the M6 and get my passport out or have to drive on the right when I want to drive on the left.” (This is NOT an April Fool. I checked.)
I read a few anecdotal comments yesterday from those involved in the financial services/sales area and they said it was dead business wise - no one is calling to place an order. Just to cancel or query the terms of their policies.
I've been speaking with someone (Scot living in London) on another forum, unrelated to politics, who told me he has withdrawn all his money and investments from Scottish banks and institutions because he couldn't get sensible answers to a series of "what if" questions he'd been asking them for some time.
This guy is a big cheese in pharmaceuticals so we're talking quite a lot of money here I would think...
I can't imagine Scottish investment managers are picking up much, if any new business at the moment. No one of sound mind would hand over their savings now, and probably not in the future either.
The capital flight south, must be horrendous.
LOL, amoeba's are communicating with each other. Are Plato and watcher two cheeks of the same arse or just two arses
'Neds in the Drive Thru want 4 Happy Meals. Can you get onto it please malcolm, they're holding up the queue. You can't spend all day texting in the disabled loo'
I actually think that whereas constitutional reform has always languished down the bottom of the list of voter concerns, that is no longer the case now. 5m Scots have been electrified by the current debate, and England seems to have woken from its slumbers.
If it's a No, we're headed for a federal UK, I think there's no doubt about it, because that's the only logical destination on the current direction of travel (that all 3 parties are now signed up to, and which the Nats in Scotland and Wales ultimately wanted all along anyway).
Quite how that is going to work though with the possibility of a UK-wide administration setting overall policies which are at odds with whatever force emerges in England-alone, I don't know!
And aside from places like Cornwall and Yorkshire, I can't imagine there being too much enthusiasm for splitting England up into federal units. We also should remember John Prescott failed spectacularly at introducing regional assemblies, although granted time has moved on now and this was before the current Scottish developments...
Even if you did carve England up is the ( virtually permanently Tory with a UKIP opposition?) SE Region Parliament going to be able to vary income tax in the same way that Scotland can? And what happens when the push taxes down (as they will)? We could have tax completion between different parts of the island of Great Britain. It's Balkanisation writ small if we are not very careful.
The trouble with a federation that splits out London is that London votes Labour. So you'd have the acute problem that the cash generator of the UK economy would potentially be subjected to envy taxes voted for by people who couldn't care less if this does a Francois Hollande to London, because as a class they themselves are always takers rather than payers of tax. If this killed the City they'd just demand that someone else they envy be taxed instead.
It's a bit too simplistic to say 'London votes Labour' - London has voted for Boris twice!
Truer to say London leans Labour. It has 28 Conservative MPs, hundreds of Conservative councillors, and the Conservatives and UKIP can expect to win c. 40% of the vote between them, next year.
I just had a quick flick through that Wee Blue Book. It's hilarious. Full of unsubstantiated 'facts', reverse scaremongering and wishful thinking.
Some of it doesn't even try to put a coherent counter argument. My favourite one was on borders if Scotland joins Schengen and takes out a different immigration policy: it doesn't claim that this wouldn't happen, just that it's be too much hassle to build and police a border so the English wouldn't bother.
I read a few anecdotal comments yesterday from those involved in the financial services/sales area and they said it was dead business wise - no one is calling to place an order. Just to cancel or query the terms of their policies.
I've been speaking with someone (Scot living in London) on another forum, unrelated to politics, who told me he has withdrawn all his money and investments from Scottish banks and institutions because he couldn't get sensible answers to a series of "what if" questions he'd been asking them for some time.
This guy is a big cheese in pharmaceuticals so we're talking quite a lot of money here I would think...
I can't imagine Scottish investment managers are picking up much, if any new business at the moment. No one of sound mind would hand over their savings now, and probably not in the future either.
The capital flight south, must be horrendous.
Many of those will be thinking of upping sticks and heading elsewhere - the canny ones have probably already done so.
The usual suspects will pop up and shout 'bye bye to all those windy fannies', but iScotland will find it difficult to pay it's way on the revenues that Short Order cooks such as malcolmg can generate.
It's not just finance. There's no investment coming into Scotland for any UK market business. That's across all industry sectors
That would explain why inward investment is at its highest for years and years, thanks for your input.
Pistorius getting the original charge reduced. "The state clearly has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder. There are just not enough facts to support such a finding," says Judge Masipa."
I actually think that whereas constitutional reform has always languished down the bottom of the list of voter concerns, that is no longer the case now. 5m Scots have been electrified by the current debate, and England seems to have woken from its slumbers.
If it's a No, we're headed for a federal UK, I think there's no doubt about it, because that's the only logical destination on the current direction of travel (that all 3 parties are now signed up to, and which the Nats in Scotland and Wales ultimately wanted all along anyway).
Quite how that is going to work though with the possibility of a UK-wide administration setting overall policies which are at odds with whatever force emerges in England-alone, I don't know!
And aside from places like Cornwall and Yorkshire, I can't imagine there being too much enthusiasm for splitting England up into federal units. We also should remember John Prescott failed spectacularly at introducing regional assemblies, although granted time has moved on now and this was before the current Scottish developments...
Even if you did carve England up is the ( virtually permanently Tory with a UKIP opposition?) SE Region Parliament going to be able to vary income tax in the same way that Scotland can? And what happens when the push taxes down (as they will)? We could have tax completion between different parts of the island of Great Britain. It's Balkanisation writ small if we are not very careful.
The trouble with a federation that splits out London is that London votes Labour. So you'd have the acute problem that the cash generator of the UK economy would potentially be subjected to envy taxes voted for by people who couldn't care less if this does a Francois Hollande to London, because as a class they themselves are always takers rather than payers of tax. If this killed the City they'd just demand that someone else they envy be taxed instead.
It's a bit too simplistic to say 'London votes Labour' - London has voted for Boris twice!
Truer to say London leans Labour. It has 28 Conservative MPs, hundreds of Conservative councillors, and the Conservatives and UKIP can expect to win c. 40% of the vote between them, next year.
But the right wing split in London is very much more pro-European than in the rest of the UK
I actually think that whereas constitutional reform has always languished down the bottom of the list of voter concerns, that is no longer the case now. 5m Scots have been electrified by the current debate, and England seems to have woken from its slumbers.
If it's a No, we're headed for a federal UK, I think there's no doubt about it, because that's the only logical destination on the current direction of travel (that all 3 parties are now signed up to, and which the Nats in Scotland and Wales ultimately wanted all along anyway).
Quite how that is going to work though with the possibility of a UK-wide administration setting overall policies which are at odds with whatever force emerges in England-alone, I don't know!
And aside from places like Cornwall and Yorkshire, I can't imagine there being too much enthusiasm for splitting England up into federal units. We also should remember John Prescott failed spectacularly at introducing regional assemblies, although granted time has moved on now and this was before the current Scottish developments...
Even if you did carve England up is the ( virtually permanently Tory with a UKIP opposition?) SE Region Parliament going to be able to vary income tax in the same way that Scotland can? And what happens when the push taxes down (as they will)? We could have tax completion between different parts of the island of Great Britain. It's Balkanisation writ small if we are not very careful.
The trouble with a federation that splits out London is that London votes Labour. So you'd have the acute problem that the cash generator of the UK economy would potentially be subjected to envy taxes voted for by people who couldn't care less if this does a Francois Hollande to London, because as a class they themselves are always takers rather than payers of tax. If this killed the City they'd just demand that someone else they envy be taxed instead.
It's a bit too simplistic to say 'London votes Labour' - London has voted for Boris twice!
Truer to say London leans Labour. It has 28 Conservative MPs, hundreds of Conservative councillors, and the Conservatives and UKIP can expect to win c. 40% of the vote between them, next year.
So, as far as I can tell Survation has 16-24 year olds the opposite of all the other polling companies - so going very heavily No, whilst others have the group split or going heavily Yes. They also have Glasgow as going heavily No which I think isn't in keeping with the other companies either.
That seems to be the difference between their result and everyone else as best as I can tell from 1 table.
Generally speaking, one shouldn't worry to much about sub-samples. All this week's polls are consistent with No having a small lead.
@faisalislam: ..So RBS havent said publicly or to staff there will be "no impact" on jobs. Fwiw, typically moves like this mean a few hundred not 1000s..
I actually think that whereas constitutional reform has always languished down the bottom of the list of voter concerns, that is no longer the case now. 5m Scots have been electrified by the current debate, and England seems to have woken from its slumbers.
If it's a No, we're headed for a federal UK, I think there's no doubt about it, because that's the only logical destination on the current direction of travel (that all 3 parties are now signed up to, and which the Nats in Scotland and Wales ultimately wanted all along anyway).
Quite how that is going to work though with the possibility of a UK-wide administration setting overall policies which are at odds with whatever force emerges in England-alone, I don't know!
And aside from places like Cornwall and Yorkshire, I can't imagine there being too much enthusiasm for splitting England up into federal units. We also should remember John Prescott failed spectacularly at introducing regional assemblies, although granted time has moved on now and this was before the current Scottish developments...
Even if you did carve England up is the ( virtually permanently Tory with a UKIP opposition?) SE Region Parliament going to be able to vary income tax in the same way that Scotland can? And what happens when the push taxes down (as they will)? We could have tax completion between different parts of the island of Great Britain. It's Balkanisation writ small if we are not very careful.
The trouble with a federation that splits out London is that London votes Labour. So you'd have the acute problem that the cash generator of the UK economy would potentially be subjected to envy taxes voted for by people who couldn't care less if this does a Francois Hollande to London, because as a class they themselves are always takers rather than payers of tax. If this killed the City they'd just demand that someone else they envy be taxed instead.
It's a bit too simplistic to say 'London votes Labour' - London has voted for Boris twice!
Truer to say London leans Labour. It has 28 Conservative MPs, hundreds of Conservative councillors, and the Conservatives and UKIP can expect to win c. 40% of the vote between them, next year.
But the right wing split in London is very much more pro-European than in the rest of the UK
Probably because half of them are French and German bankers.
I just had a quick flick through that Wee Blue Book. It's hilarious. Full of unsubstantiated 'facts', reverse scaremongering and wishful thinking.
Some of it doesn't even try to put a coherent counter argument. My favourite one was on borders if Scotland joins Schengen and takes out a different immigration policy: it doesn't claim that this wouldn't happen, just that it's be too much hassle to build and police a border so the English wouldn't bother.
So, as far as I can tell Survation has 16-24 year olds the opposite of all the other polling companies - so going very heavily No, whilst others have the group split or going heavily Yes. They also have Glasgow as going heavily No which I think isn't in keeping with the other companies either.
That seems to be the difference between their result and everyone else as best as I can tell from 1 table.
Generally speaking, one shouldn't worry to much about sub-samples. All this week's polls are consistent with No having a small lead.
you could stick your head up your erchie and just go with that
This is an even more facile argument. Lenders will think and do as we believe they will. End of.
Q: “But if Scotland didn’t accept any of the UK’s national debt, wouldn’t it be punished by the international markets? Why would anyone lend Scotland money?”
A: Because it’s not Scotland’s debt. Scotland had no say over it being taken out - it’s the UK government’s debt, the UK decided where to spend it and the UK has already accepted full liability for it. If you’re living in a rented flat and the landlord defaults on his mortgage, YOU don’t get a bad credit rating.
Lenders don’t care in the least about the UK’s internal political wrangles - they lend based on whether they think they’ll get paid back or not, and Scotland is a wealthy country with plenty of security for any debt it took out. It would be a very low risk for any lender.
But as we explored in Chapter 2, an independent Scotland would be likely to need far less lending anyway, so even if it had to pay slightly higher interest on its borrowing it could afford to do so.
If we get an English Parliament with the same powers as a DevoMax Scotland we then have the very real problem of what the UK government is for other than foreign policy and defence. At that point it seems a little bit wasteful to have all those MPs sat at Westminster twiddling their thumbs until the next crisis blows up... And a UK PM would essentially be stripped of any authority on the domestic stage, being someone we wheel out occasionally for EU summits (assuming we stay in) and the odd photo op with the US President.
If Scotland really does get significant new powers in the tax and spend sphere, rather than DevoMax doesn't this really become CurrencyUnionPlus? Not sure why Salmonds really that bothered about independence now, looks like we'll gift him what he wants if everyone votes no...
Foreign policy and defence are important however. Add in immigration, justice, and overall economic policy, and there's still a very big role for Parliament. But, probably with fewer MPs,
Alternatively, we devolve more power to the Counties. Or have a rule that only English MPs may vote on issues that affect England.
@faisalislam: ..So RBS havent said publicly or to staff there will be "no impact" on jobs. Fwiw, typically moves like this mean a few hundred not 1000s..
Those just in too
James Cook @BBCJamesCook · 53 mins RBS chief exec to staff: moving registered office post-independence “is not an intention to move operations or jobs.” #indyref #RBS
James Cook @BBCJamesCook · 54 mins RBS chief exec Ross McEwan to staff: re-domiciling would be a “technical procedure” re location of “registered head office.” #indyref
This is an even more facile argument. Lenders will think and do as we believe they will. End of.
Q: “But if Scotland didn’t accept any of the UK’s national debt, wouldn’t it be punished by the international markets? Why would anyone lend Scotland money?”
A: Because it’s not Scotland’s debt. Scotland had no say over it being taken out - it’s the UK government’s debt, the UK decided where to spend it and the UK has already accepted full liability for it. If you’re living in a rented flat and the landlord defaults on his mortgage, YOU don’t get a bad credit rating.
Lenders don’t care in the least about the UK’s internal political wrangles - they lend based on whether they think they’ll get paid back or not, and Scotland is a wealthy country with plenty of security for any debt it took out. It would be a very low risk for any lender.
But as we explored in Chapter 2, an independent Scotland would be likely to need far less lending anyway, so even if it had to pay slightly higher interest on its borrowing it could afford to do so.
Comments
The one good thing from the YES point of view, is the immense amount of damage and bad feeling this has caused here in England. I am beginning to think that if the referendum was nationwide then Scotland would be independent next week.
If they want to hold another referendum then they might be wise to cast the voting net wider.
For Labour the chickens must be made to come home to roost. In 1997 we had a quaint but essentially robust constitution. Through self-serving piecemeal tinkering it has been reduced to absurdity.
But note: This only would create an effectively federal legislature. It would NOT create a federal executive (English government). (And note those campaigning for an English Parliament are less vocal about an English Government also - ie full devolution for England)Fully devolved Departments (education, health, etc) would become then effectively English only.
This horrifies Westminster because it might mean 'the Government' could effectively have no control over the big sexy departments. It means 'Westminster' loses a huge amount of power to England. But..if England's legislature is the body of English Westminster MPs then so what? The English Parliament (either full and formal or via a Voting Act) would still sit in the House (and the facilities would be shared between the federal House and the English House). No point in wasting money creating a new one in Kidderminster or wherever.
Just recognise and empower England. It's that simple.
Guildford would become the richest town in the country.
The usual suspects will pop up and shout 'bye bye to all those windy fannies', but iScotland will find it difficult to pay it's way on the revenues that Short Order cooks such as malcolmg can generate.
The antipathy is palpable. Under any given article, a small proportion are pro-SNP/but mainly rude about the English/Tories - one or two are *let's still be friends* and the other 90% are Good Riddance, please vote Yes.
It wasn't at all like this even 3 months ago. It was much more conciliatory/we'll be sad to see you go...
I really don't think the SNP understand what they've done. Or if they do - they don't care a jot. Well, that'll come back to bite them on the arse, whatever English politicos think they can get away with = the public won't let them.
Also, that bill is coming out of the Scottish taxpayer's pocket (or at least the bit returned to the Scottish exchequer). I wouldn't dream of complaining about that, but I might suggest that it could possibly be seen a little over-generous to have to pay as well for a second lass, English as the two together may seem when you meet them, if Scottish children could not expect grants out of what is effectively the English budget.
The Eu rules are in any case how it worked before - an arrangement to which the UK agreed as a whole - and nothing to do with what the Scots decided under devolution.
(And not all her bills, surely. Just the tuition fees?)
A statement just issued by BT has quotes from Professor Hugh Pennington, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology at the University of Aberdeen, who said:
With just days to go until we make the most important decision in Scotland’s history, we still don’t know how our world-class universities would be paid for. This is a risk we just don’t have to take.
To settle for less than being a global leader in education is selling Scotland short and that is why we should say ‘No Thanks’ to separation."
Even the academics are not keen on Salmond's fantasy economic plans.
Chancellors would get to determine overall budgets etc. Devolved spending departments would get to decide how they spend their allocation - NOT how much to spend. The UK chancellor would remain in overall control of tax and borrowing and spending limits. Devolved departments (or countries) would control how they spend what they are allocated (but would only receive from No11 / general UK wide taxation what they are allocated - similar to existing block grant to Scotland). We could additionally allow devolved countries to tax and spend more locally (this is the current Devomax extended offer) - but, crucially, not to borrow (otherwise UK chancellor loses control of overall UK finances).
It's actually simple enough -but a giant headache for politicians to accept the transfer of powers. Many English political jobs (health, education, etc) would be much bigger than some federal UK ones (rump non-devolved Home Secretary). Suck it up. England exists.
Which is apt as they help usher in Ed Miliband as PM and deny us a referendum.
'Aye: Young People in Scotland Want Independence
...The most striking part of the conversation came, inevitably, at the end. One after another, people in our debate told me how British meant little or nothing to them. They had no great desire to wrap themselves in an identity that encompasses the English and Welsh. Even some of those in the No camp.
And that is the bit Prime Minister David Cameron, Labour leader Ed Miliband and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg don’t seem to have understood. There is a complete mismatch in their arguments.
As the party leaders travelled up from London to love-bomb Scotland with talk of British history, a family of nations, common bonds and aspirations, it seemed many here just didn’t know what these men were going on about. Scottishness is something too many English don’t get, because we feel British. Our identity includes Scotland. For the Scots, even many of those who would rather stay in the Union, their identity is something quite different.
And all the talk of this being irreversible, drastic, tragic and heartbreaking doesn’t seem to have much effect. It may feel like the time for emotion, with the possible breakup of Britain seemingly real and close. But the emotion from those voting Yes is optimism. As we saw on Wednesday, the teenagers here aren't interested in nostalgia and sentimentality.'
http://tinyurl.com/kahfe5p
Since bad things only happen under a Labour government, would you have been happier if Britain had been a two party state, Whigs and Tories?
As for the poll, is it a voodoo poll? And even then it shows quite a mixed story - I was surprised how mixed, which may imply small sample sizes or local campaigns, as well as the subject balance.
Guildford would become the richest town in the country.
If you had a federation it would be completely foolish to separate out London from the home counties. They're already talking about giving Boris control of the commuter lines because the transport systems are so integrated, large chunks of Surrey, Kent, Essex and Hertfordshire are joined up to the London built up area, and even larger chunks are in London's travel to work area. The existing regional system makes no sense either: why on Earth are Herts and Beds thrown in with Norfolk when all their transport links run north-south? The old statistical region for the South East made far more sense:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/EnglandStandStatRegionsNumbered.png
A party such as UKIP can do well in Euro elections where the MEP elected makes literally absolutely no difference whatsoever to anything at all; you could elect the UltraSubmissive Federast Have Your Way With Britain Party or UKIP and literally nothing would ensue differently in any way at all.
UKIP do less well in aggregate in council elections, where they may be allowed near actual money, or schools, or stuff that's important. They do less well still in GEs where they may be allowed near even more important things like the public finances or Britain's international standing. I pick UKIP as the obvious example, but it applies to other parties, eg Respect and the BNP, and to other elections (the Mayoral one you cite).
This is how you have a London with a Tory mayor and a majority of Labour MPs off the same electorate.
Hope he is OK He is only 31
I agree, but I would go further and say that there would be no need for ANY devolved government.
Are you right in the head.
He'd have been found not guilty months ago
i advise any female spectators to attend the toilet before arriving at the stadium
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/sep/11/morrisons-profits-slump-2014-supermarkets-dividend
Calm down dear.
Good spot by the judge - seems she is being very thorough !
http://wingsoverscotland.com/quoted-for-proof/
not to mention driving on the right ...
“I would feel really genuinely sad if Scotland votes for independence, not just for our own self-interest and in the extra difficulty we would face getting a Labour government in England but I also don’t want to drive up the M6 and get my passport out or have to drive on the right when I want to drive on the left.” (This is NOT an April Fool. I checked.)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/scottish-politics/10648238/Labour-oppose-Scottish-independence-because-they-fear-losing-power-in-Westminster.html
The Indy ref or this Judge's summing up?
Some of it doesn't even try to put a coherent counter argument. My favourite one was on borders if Scotland joins Schengen and takes out a different immigration policy: it doesn't claim that this wouldn't happen, just that it's be too much hassle to build and police a border so the English wouldn't bother.
Shame...
"The state clearly has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder. There are just not enough facts to support such a finding," says Judge Masipa."
Why joke over someone's death? An innocent person was killed, someone's daughter, and you make crude jokes about it?
http://barneystringer.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/is-london-too-small/
England fans the other night were singing "F### off Scotland"...
off the table cos we'll be oot the windae...
Anyone who knows me, knows my sense of humour is well, pretty wrong.
I'm sure you'll post a video of Enoch Powell predicting in the 60s that Pistorius would shoot his girlfriend.
Q: “But if Scotland didn’t accept any of the UK’s national debt, wouldn’t it be punished by the international markets? Why would anyone lend Scotland money?”
A: Because it’s not Scotland’s debt. Scotland had no say over it being taken out - it’s the UK government’s debt, the UK decided where to spend it and the UK has already accepted full liability for it. If you’re living in a rented flat and the landlord defaults on his mortgage, YOU don’t get a bad credit rating.
Lenders don’t care in the least about the UK’s internal political wrangles - they lend based on whether they think they’ll get paid back or not, and Scotland is a wealthy country with plenty of security for any debt it took out. It would be a very low risk for any lender.
But as we explored in Chapter 2, an independent Scotland would be likely to need far less lending anyway, so even if it had to pay slightly higher interest on its borrowing it could afford to do so.
Alternatively, we devolve more power to the Counties. Or have a rule that only English MPs may vote on issues that affect England.
"Anyone who knows me, knows my sense of humour is well, pretty wrong. "
You are a wicked child!
James Cook @BBCJamesCook · 53 mins
RBS chief exec to staff: moving registered office post-independence “is not an intention to move operations or jobs.” #indyref #RBS
James Cook @BBCJamesCook · 54 mins
RBS chief exec Ross McEwan to staff: re-domiciling would be a “technical procedure” re location of “registered head office.” #indyref