Has O'Flynn explained yet where Nigel's NHS £3billion is coming from? Or does he limit himself to talking about their former MEP who they reckoned was a baddun 7 months ago?
@iainmartin1: UKIP to fund £3bn for NHS "partly by clawing back money from health tourists." That old standby, from list headed "magic sources of money"
If even biased research shows immigrants cost us 120bn every decade, cracking down on immigration would enable financing of both tax cuts and debt reduction, all whilst improving public service provision for natives.
It's the micro-management they bring in to pander to people like you that costs money. You end up locking out people who want to work and pay taxes ("economic migrants", horror) and only letting in dependents. Even for family reunions they end up biasing the system against net contributors. For example, you need to be making a respectable amount to be allowed to bring a foreign spouse over, allegedly so they don't create a drain on the state, but the foreign spouse's potential income isn't counted. The upshot is that a skilled Brit adding an unskilled spouse is permitted, but an unskilled Brit adding a skilled foreign spouse is verboten.
When the government gets out of the way and lets people come and go freely, as they have to with EU migration, they end up turning a profit.
Has O'Flynn explained yet where Nigel's NHS £3billion is coming from? Or does he limit himself to talking about their former MEP who they reckoned was a baddun 7 months ago?
@iainmartin1: UKIP to fund £3bn for NHS "partly by clawing back money from health tourists." That old standby, from list headed "magic sources of money"
Mark Reckless @MarkReckless · 11m11 minutes ago @iainmartin1 It is £5bn more for NHS, £3bn from EU budget plus £2bn by requiring new migrants to take out NHS-approved insurance for 5 years
So no tax cuts or increased personal allowances as promised by O'Flynn at the conference then?
Brave - 'We're scrapping tax cuts in favour of NHS spending'
Welcome to the world of hard choices.
Overseas aid and gross EU membership fees total £27bn p.a. That's a lot of money to play with.
How are <5 UKIP MP going to get us off of paying EU membership fees?</p>
Oh I thought manifestos were to outline what a party would do if they were in government?
Are you saying they should be to outline what they'd do if they got 5 MP's or less?
We both know that UKIP can promise a unicorn in every garage and unlimited wealth to all. They are never going to have to back it up. It's the primary reason farage does well in debates he can spout populist bollocks and never get called on it to the point where he called his own manifesto crap. The libdems used to do exactly the same up until the point they screwed up and got into government, which didn't turn out well.
But the point you made was nonsense.. by your logic, parties that aren't going to win power in elections shouldn't bother with manifestos
The point is UKIP don't bother with manifestos, what they churn out are pointless pie in the sky lists of crap, as so eloquently pointed out by your leader.
No your point was UKIP cant deliver on their manifesto because they wont be in Government, which begs the question, "Should parties that aren't going to be in govt bother with manifestos?"
The annual figure is the best since 2007, before the recession, and indicates that the UK is likely to have been the world's fastest growing major economy last year.
6 years from the crash and after scuppering the recovery that was in place in 2009-10 all Osborne can muster is a 2.6% level of growth driven yet again by services?
This is economic blitzkrieg by a clueless Tory Party, floundering after their precious plan A predictably failed, clinging desperately to a mini spike in GDP driven almost entirely by super low interest rates rather than any policy put forward by this keystone cops of a government, and it follows that the only Party promising chaos should they be allowed anywhere near the levers of power after 7th May is, yet again, the Conservative Party.
As for fastest growth in G7 claim - we await the US's Q4 number, we note how Osborne usually ends up getting downgraded a few months on (that Q3 0.7% looks ripe for a subsequent downgrade), and speeding up after all your rivals have lapped you is not a very great achievement.
After surviving the dead cat bounce and adding hundreds of thousands of jobs and creating record levels of employment. Inflation at 0.5%. Workers in the construction industry are naming their own price - hardly evidence of a non-performing economy. Labour destroyed 7% of the economy, we have done remarkably well considering. To be fair you do give us all a laugh.
It doesn't exactly sound like a categorical denial to me. More a "pre-election we're not talking about such things" denial.
I can't see the SNP entering a coalition anyway, so it's academic. Confidence & Supply, or more likely a blackmailing 'we'll support you for the moment if you behave, wee Eddie' is another matter, of course.
A part-ELBOW for the five polls so far this week (YG/ComRes/Survation/Ash/Pop) gives:
Con 32.7% Lab 32.3% UKIP 16.1% LD 7.4% Green 6.2%
CON LEAD of 0.4%!!!
Caveat Emptor - this is a part-ELBOW, it's only Tuesday! Still, this time last week, I reported a similar crossover but it was a far smaller, only 0.06%!
Also, critics of the ELBOW methodology may be interested to know that a simple average of these five polls ALSO gives a Tory lead of 0.4%!
Pedantry central: the Sunil Psephological Analysis Team (SPAT) have noted that Ashcroft's Table 7 should really read Lab 181, Con 177, UKIP 83, LD 40 (NOT 36), Grn 50, base 562 (NOT 559), bumping the LDs up to 7%.
Seems clear to me Labour have no interest in a coalition with anyone and they'll run as a minority government if the Tories can't form a government.
It makes sense as they could do deals with both the SNP and Lib Dems on different things and wouldn't be at the mercy of one party. I imagine they'd have to work with the Lib Dems to pass their budgets as SNP are anti austerity.
The Tories have already started campaigning on this. I received a leaflet last week though, from memory, it went wider than the mansion tax and seemed to imply that Labour would end up taxing all homes.
Which is surely correct. Once you've established the principle that envy and inflation can be the basis for a tax, then who decides what is so enviable it deserves to be taxed? There can't be anyone nobody envies, except perhaps Mrs. Getrud Farage.
I can't see it happening. The SNP will do everything in their power to make Cameron PM, whilst trying to give precisely the opposite impression.
And if they can't do that they'll get as much pork out of Ed's barrel as they can, one piece of meat at a time and with no guarantees that they won't pull the plug on him at any time. [Apologies for the mixed metaphor!] The more dysfunctional and chaotic Westminster is, the better from their point of view. Entering a coalition, with their only significant political opponent, makes no sense for them. They'd want to blame Labour, not help it out.
Asked on Sky if Labour could form a coalition with the SNP, Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, replied:
No. And I don’t think anybody is suggesting any suggestion of a deal with the SNP at all. We’re fighting hard for a majority.
This is noticeably firmer than the line that Ed Miliband adopted when he was asked this question on the Andrew Marr show recently. He played down the prospect of a deal with the SNP, but pointedly refused to rule it out.
But does Balls’ line mean very much. Probably not. You expect politicians to say they are not contemplating coalition, and Balls’ comment sounded more like a rhetorical no than a cast-iron pledge never, ever to work with the SNP. If Labour do countenance a pact with the SNP at this stage, then they are effectively giving Labour-leaning voters in Scotland a free pass to vote SNP and so, even if Labour figures are planning a deal with the SNP, they are not likely to say so.
I don't mind, its your prerogative but its not right to say Kippers don't back their judgement, implying you do.
There is a long, long list of people who I have offered to let back their judgement and have bottled it on here.. mainly Tories I think
I was speaking generally. You certainly put your money where your mouth is, sometimes too much so for your own good! I seem to recall that you will owe me something when Labour fail to put an EU referendum in their manifesto.
As for bottling, the biggest example of all mouth and no trousers here are the Kippers who tediously and ludicrously whinge that Cameron can't be trusted to keep his pledge to hold the referendum by the end of 2017, if he has a majority. I've searched high and low to find a credit-worthy Kipper who's prepared to back this nonsense, in the hope of taking some money off them, but sadly I haven't yet found one mug enough to take the bet. It doesn't stop them repeating the nonsense, though.
Oh yeah! I forgot about that bet.. you're looking good to cop
I don't think the bet you are offering is the riposte you think it is if I am honest, but good luck all the same
Seems clear to me Labour have no interest in a coalition with anyone and they'll run as a minority government if the Tories can't form a government.
It makes sense as they could do deals with both the SNP and Lib Dems on different things and wouldn't be at the mercy of one party. I imagine they'd have to work with the Lib Dems to pass their budgets as SNP are anti austerity.
That will only work if they can form OR majorities. It looks quite likely that the only majority Labour can form will be an AND majority. Such a government would be unstable, whether it was formed through a coalition or as a Labour minority government.
How about we have a gross assets tax, at a very small level (say 0.1-25%/year) to discourage people from borrowing too much for 'investment'.
It would also act as a de facto mansion tax, while taxing the person with two £1.5m homes more than someone who had a single £2m home.
Because this would fall disproportionately on the well off, I'd combine this with an abolition of the pointless 45% rate.
(For the record, I would be worse off under this proposal. I propose it as an academic exercise.)
Would you impose it on cash savings, shares, pension pots? What about other sources of wealth e.g. interests in businesses or in agricultural land? What about borrowings?
I think that if any wealth tax is imposed it will be in addition to not instead of any existing tax.
It's perfectly feasible, as is the idea of changing the UK tax system from an income to an assets base. Kay and King devoted a chunk of their excellent book to just such an idea:
Unfortunately, it is politically unacceptable so we we will never see it put into practice, except perhaps in minor and irrelevant manifestations such as the Mansion Tax.
PS I take it you missed my tip yesterday? Happily a number of other PBers profited but it was given directly to you so a pity if you didn't spot it.
I'm so sorry. I did miss it. I shall pay more attention next time. Sorry!! (But thanks.)
Once I get past the stinking cold I'm suffering from my thoughts will turn to more interesting racing matters. Are you planning a visit to Cheltenham?
Yes, I am planning a visit to Cheltenham, in much the same way as the Pope is planning an Easter Mass. Any chance of seeing you there?
Wish you better.
Yes - quite a good chance this year, provided bankers don't choose that specific week to misbehave!
I can't see it happening. The SNP will do everything in their power to make Cameron PM, whilst trying to give precisely the opposite impression.
So the SNP's strategy should be for Salmond to make ever more outlandlish pronouncements on what he's going to do when he's Home Secretary in the Labour-led coalition...
Will boost the SNP in Scotland, and ... kill Labour everywhere else.
I experienced something for the first time on the tube today, while travelling to work: Two builders, complete with tool boxes, chatting away. Not in English, of Polish, or Latvian, but in French.
Well, they probably were French, but there have been strong historic links between France and Poland. Frederic Chopin, Grand Duchy of Warsaw during the Napoleonic era, French aid to the Poles in their revolt against the Germans in 1918 and against the Soviets in 1920-1.
It makes sense as they could do deals with both the SNP and Lib Dems on different things and wouldn't be at the mercy of one party. I imagine they'd have to work with the Lib Dems to pass their budgets as SNP are anti austerity.
A bigger problem will be half his backbench (at least) are anti-austerity. Even with LD support a Labour austerity budget is going to be very ticklish to pass, if the LDs get 25-30 seats, there are at least that many in the Labour hard-left awkward squad.
I don't mind, its your prerogative but its not right to say Kippers don't back their judgement, implying you do.
There is a long, long list of people who I have offered to let back their judgement and have bottled it on here.. mainly Tories I think
I was speaking generally. You certainly put your money where your mouth is, sometimes too much so for your own good! I seem to recall that you will owe me something when Labour fail to put an EU referendum in their manifesto.
As for bottling, the biggest example of all mouth and no trousers here are the Kippers who tediously and ludicrously whinge that Cameron can't be trusted to keep his pledge to hold the referendum by the end of 2017, if he has a majority. I've searched high and low to find a credit-worthy Kipper who's prepared to back this nonsense, in the hope of taking some money off them, but sadly I haven't yet found one mug enough to take the bet. It doesn't stop them repeating the nonsense, though.
HAHAHAHA
I've been willing to bet you on this based on the terms Cameron has stated, and you've run away like a scared little girl.
I'm happy to bet you £50 at evens that Cameron will not have a referendum on a finalised renegotiation, signed off by all parties that need to sign off, by the end of 2017. If Cameron is not PM, bets are off. Deal?
I really hope they do, if only to give their people representation in the Commons, but also because they currently see no problem with sitting in Stormont or the "usurper" Parliament in Dublin.
I don't mind, its your prerogative but its not right to say Kippers don't back their judgement, implying you do.
There is a long, long list of people who I have offered to let back their judgement and have bottled it on here.. mainly Tories I think
I was speaking generally. You certainly put your money where your mouth is, sometimes too much so for your own good! I seem to recall that you will owe me something when Labour fail to put an EU referendum in their manifesto.
As for bottling, the biggest example of all mouth and no trousers here are the Kippers who tediously and ludicrously whinge that Cameron can't be trusted to keep his pledge to hold the referendum by the end of 2017, if he has a majority. I've searched high and low to find a credit-worthy Kipper who's prepared to back this nonsense, in the hope of taking some money off them, but sadly I haven't yet found one mug enough to take the bet. It doesn't stop them repeating the nonsense, though.
HAHAHAHA
I've been willing to bet you on this based on the terms Cameron has stated, and you've run away like a scared little girl.
I'm happy to bet you £50 at evens that Cameron will not have a referendum on a finalised renegotiation, signed off by all parties that need to sign off, by the end of 2017. If Cameron is not PM, bets are off. Deal?
Nabavi's bet offer is far more reasonable, and you know it.
Ah, happy memories of September 19. That reminds me, I don't remember seeing any further reports on the fire that night affecting the only (then) pro-indy newspaper in Scotland. Did you ever see anything?
Was it not found out fairly shortly after that the cause of the fire, which as you try and imply affected the Sunday Herald (but presumably not the pro-Union Herald based in the same building), was an electrical fault at a nearby pub?
But it backtracked later the same day with a tweet along the lines you mention and I can't find that it printed any more.
It did seem odd to me at the time precisely because the Herald and the Evening Times were also affected, as oyu sa.y. Mention of the rioting reminded me that I didn't remember seeing anything more about it, which is why I was asking what the longer term story was ( and hence my wording).
I really hope they do, if only to give their people representation in the Commons, but also because they currently see no problem with sitting in Stormont or the "usurper" Parliament in Dublin.
They won't take their seats. Never have and never will...
I can't see it happening. The SNP will do everything in their power to make Cameron PM, whilst trying to give precisely the opposite impression.
So the SNP's strategy should be for Salmond to make ever more outlandlish pronouncements on what he's going to do when he's Home Secretary in the Labour-led coalition...
Don't be silly!
When has Alex Salmond ever promised anything he couldn't deliver?
Like; -A currency Union, or -Automatic EU membership, or -Joint citizenship with rUK, or -$110 oil?
Next you'll be suggesting he makes stuff up - when did he ever do that?
I can't see it happening. The SNP will do everything in their power to make Cameron PM, whilst trying to give precisely the opposite impression.
So the SNP's strategy should be for Salmond to make ever more outlandlish pronouncements on what he's going to do when he's Home Secretary in the Labour-led coalition...
Don't be silly!
When has Alex Salmond ever promised anything he couldn't deliver?
Like; -A currency Union, or -Automatic EU membership, or -Joint citizenship with rUK, or -$110 oil?
Next you'll be suggesting he makes stuff up - when did he ever do that?
To be fair, joint citizenship with rUK would have been perfectly doable.
Ah, happy memories of September 19. That reminds me, I don't remember seeing any further reports on the fire that night affecting the only (then) pro-indy newspaper in Scotland. Did you ever see anything?
Was it not found out fairly shortly after that the cause of the fire, which as you try and imply affected the Sunday Herald (but presumably not the pro-Union Herald based in the same building), was an electrical fault at a nearby pub?
But it backtracked later the same day with a tweet along the lines you mention and I can't find that it printed any more.
Like the 'Yes Scotland Office Firebombed' story that turned out to be:
- a fire in a bin - outside an empty shop, which - had been covered in Yes posters and which left - the shop and posters undamaged?
Or was this another 'Unionist Outrage!' which had as much substance as one of Eck's promises?
I don't mind, its your prerogative but its not right to say Kippers don't back their judgement, implying you do.
There is a long, long list of people who I have offered to let back their judgement and have bottled it on here.. mainly Tories I think
I was speaking generally. You certainly put your money where your mouth is, sometimes too much so for your own good! I seem to recall that you will owe me something when Labour fail to put an EU referendum in their manifesto.
As for bottling, the biggest example of all mouth and no trousers here are the Kippers who tediously and ludicrously whinge that Cameron can't be trusted to keep his pledge to hold the referendum by the end of 2017, if he has a majority. I've searched high and low to find a credit-worthy Kipper who's prepared to back this nonsense, in the hope of taking some money off them, but sadly I haven't yet found one mug enough to take the bet. It doesn't stop them repeating the nonsense, though.
HAHAHAHA
I've been willing to bet you on this based on the terms Cameron has stated, and you've run away like a scared little girl.
I'm happy to bet you £50 at evens that Cameron will not have a referendum on a finalised renegotiation, signed off by all parties that need to sign off, by the end of 2017. If Cameron is not PM, bets are off. Deal?
Nabavi's bet offer is far more reasonable, and you know it.
My offer is entirely consistent with what Cameron has repeatedly pledged:
Before holding a poll, Cameron has pledged to renegotiate the terms of the UK membership with other member states.
I can't see it happening. The SNP will do everything in their power to make Cameron PM, whilst trying to give precisely the opposite impression.
So the SNP's strategy should be for Salmond to make ever more outlandlish pronouncements on what he's going to do when he's Home Secretary in the Labour-led coalition...
Don't be silly!
When has Alex Salmond ever promised anything he couldn't deliver?
Like; -A currency Union, or -Automatic EU membership, or -Joint citizenship with rUK, or -$110 oil?
Next you'll be suggesting he makes stuff up - when did he ever do that?
To be fair, joint citizenship with rUK would have been perfectly doable.
If rUK had agreed....the point was, it was not within Salmond's gift.....
Glad I started including the Greens in ELBOW from the start of this month (also, back-dated to the beginning of August). The battle for 4th between the Greens and LDs is perhaps more intriguing than the Lab v Con contest (Er, until last night at any rate!)
Bury North: Lab gain Watford: Con hold Torbay: LD hold Reading West: Con hold Cornwall North: LD hold S'ton Itchen: Lab hold
17/06/2014 Single (Win) 1 £ 100.00 Next General Election Constituency Betting Seat Winner - Basingstoke Conservatives 1/6 Pending
Is this one looking safe ?
Last year I stuck a tenner on UKIP winning Basingstoke.
I don't think it will be a winner.
If Basingstoke was on the East coast I'd back UKIP there too.
UKIP Hampshire is in disarray, watch the media.
Major splits in Portsmouth (Denny left) and in Fareham.
Any spill over to Eastleigh?
All in UKIP Hampshire affected in some part but worse in Portsmouth and Fareham. UKIP strategy is also daft (but good for the Conservatives) in that they are also spreading themselves far too thin in Hampshire using up good candidates in no hopers in places such as North Hants and Romsey.
I can't see it happening. The SNP will do everything in their power to make Cameron PM, whilst trying to give precisely the opposite impression.
So the SNP's strategy should be for Salmond to make ever more outlandlish pronouncements on what he's going to do when he's Home Secretary in the Labour-led coalition...
Don't be silly!
When has Alex Salmond ever promised anything he couldn't deliver?
Like; -A currency Union, or -Automatic EU membership, or -Joint citizenship with rUK, or -$110 oil?
Next you'll be suggesting he makes stuff up - when did he ever do that?
To be fair, joint citizenship with rUK would have been perfectly doable.
If rUK had agreed....the point was, it was not within Salmond's gift.....
It was inevitable that the rUK would agree that though, unlike all the other stuff on the list.
Ah, happy memories of September 19. That reminds me, I don't remember seeing any further reports on the fire that night affecting the only (then) pro-indy newspaper in Scotland. Did you ever see anything?
Was it not found out fairly shortly after that the cause of the fire, which as you try and imply affected the Sunday Herald (but presumably not the pro-Union Herald based in the same building), was an electrical fault at a nearby pub?
But it backtracked later the same day with a tweet along the lines you mention and I can't find that it printed any more.
Like the 'Yes Scotland Office Firebombed' story that turned out to be:
- a fire in a bin - outside an empty shop, which - had been covered in Yes posters and which left - the shop and posters undamaged?
Or was this another 'Unionist Outrage!' which had as much substance as one of Eck's promises?
It was the fact that it was the least likely newspaper in Scotland to moan about Unionist outrage that struck both TUD (I assume) and me. And I did not say there had been any firereaising - just that I wondered what the outcome was. You might want to recall the Unionist pol in Edinburgh who got hysterical about one Yes sticker on his window, and some graffiti that on inspection were just the usual local neds' territorial slogans.
I'm still waiting to see the final tally of indyref violence, but so far as I know Labour pols from down south are leading comfortably in the political activist stakes.
I really hope they do, if only to give their people representation in the Commons, but also because they currently see no problem with sitting in Stormont or the "usurper" Parliament in Dublin.
They won't take their seats. Never have and never will...
But in the extremely unlikely scenario of Con + DUP = 324 seats and they agree a minority coalition, would SF take their seats in anticipation of a vote of confidence?
ISAM - no thanks. I don't even bet on the blue team at 1/33 - I'm surprised you just aren't lumping on with Shadsy at 12-1 on your kipper boys given they said their private polling showed them beating the Blues in Rochford & Southend East - and as you flagged up here?
More importantly, this is a morning where no opinion poll so far today has shown the Tories ahead of Labour...
I really hope they do, if only to give their people representation in the Commons, but also because they currently see no problem with sitting in Stormont or the "usurper" Parliament in Dublin.
They won't take their seats. Never have and never will...
But in the extremely unlikely scenario of Con + DUP = 324 seats and they agree a minority coalition, would SF take their seats in anticipation of a vote of confidence?
They'd at least think about it, surely?
Not even for a second.
What difference would PM Cameron or PM Miliband make to them anyway?
If rUK had agreed....the point was, it was not within Salmond's gift.....
None of these were promises made by Salmond and none of them were lies. An expectation or prediction is not a lie.
Citizenship was demonstrably true (Ireland). The UK government refused to request an EU decision on membership. Currency Union was virtually certain to stop the gradual Devaluation of Sterling turning into a crash. Oil price was the best prediction at the time and provided by Sir Ian Wood before the UK government bought him.
BUT and this is important. The referendum is over, it's time that Loyalists moved on and dealt with the issues of today, such as delivering Home Rule as promised by Better Together to swing the vote. The people of Scotland are speaking on this - they trust only the SNP to ensure that the Vow is delivered and a clear majority believe Smith does not go far enough.
If Loyalists insist on re-fighting the referendum every day, they will continue to be seen as an irrelevance by the electorate.
US marginal oil and gas producers thrown under the wheels in order to get Vlad put in his box. You can see why so many world leaders wanted to be in Saudi Arabia this past week - they have performed admirably in trashing the Russian economy.
I really hope they do, if only to give their people representation in the Commons, but also because they currently see no problem with sitting in Stormont or the "usurper" Parliament in Dublin.
They won't take their seats. Never have and never will...
But in the extremely unlikely scenario of Con + DUP = 324 seats and they agree a minority coalition, would SF take their seats in anticipation of a vote of confidence?
They'd at least think about it, surely?
Nope. Why would they be interested in, or seek to influence, which party forms the UK government?
Yet he's lying to the voters when he says he wants the debates. As even his own biographer is admitting.
I think you're confusing your Isabels.
Isabel Oakeshott, his biographer, tweeted "DC will be more than confident going head to head with @Ed_Miliband in TV debates. And a 7 way debate will hold few fears for him either"
Isabel Hardman, not his biographer, tweeted "Difficult to say anything other than that Cameron is being disingenuous over the TV debates."
Yet he's lying to the voters when he says he wants the debates. As even his own biographer is admitting.
I think you're confusing your Isabels.
Isabel Oakeshott, his biographer, tweeted "DC will be more than confident going head to head with @Ed_Miliband in TV debates. And a 7 way debate will hold few fears for him either"
Isabel Hardman, not his biographer, tweeted "Difficult to say anything other than that Cameron is being disingenuous over the TV debates."
Yet he's lying to the voters when he says he wants the debates. As even his own biographer is admitting.
I think you're confusing your Isabels.
Isabel Oakeshott, his biographer, tweeted "DC will be more than confident going head to head with @Ed_Miliband in TV debates. And a 7 way debate will hold few fears for him either"
Isabel Hardman, not his biographer, tweeted "Difficult to say anything other than that Cameron is being disingenuous over the TV debates."
Yet he's lying to the voters when he says he wants the debates. As even his own biographer is admitting.
I think you're confusing your Isabels.
Isabel Oakeshott, his biographer, tweeted "DC will be more than confident going head to head with @Ed_Miliband in TV debates. And a 7 way debate will hold few fears for him either"
Isabel Hardman, not his biographer, tweeted "Difficult to say anything other than that Cameron is being disingenuous over the TV debates."
US marginal oil and gas producers thrown under the wheels in order to get Vlad put in his box. You can see why so many world leaders wanted to be in Saudi Arabia this past week - they have performed admirably in trashing the Russian economy.
It was the US producers that caused Saudi Arabia to have to accept a lower oil price, not the other way around.
If rUK had agreed....the point was, it was not within Salmond's gift.....
None of these were promises made by Salmond and none of them were lies. An expectation or prediction is not a lie.
Citizenship was demonstrably true (Ireland). The UK government refused to request an EU decision on membership. Currency Union was virtually certain to stop the gradual Devaluation of Sterling turning into a crash. Oil price was the best prediction at the time and provided by Sir Ian Wood before the UK government bought him.
BUT and this is important. The referendum is over, it's time that Loyalists moved on and dealt with the issues of today, such as delivering Home Rule as promised by Better Together to swing the vote. The people of Scotland are speaking on this - they trust only the SNP to ensure that the Vow is delivered and a clear majority believe Smith does not go far enough.
If Loyalists insist on re-fighting the referendum every day, they will continue to be seen as an irrelevance by the electorate.
There was no chance of a currency union, and the only currency that would have got trashed was Scotland's petrocurrency when the oil price fell.
I'm kicking myself that the Scots bottled it. It would have been nice to have some cheap holidays without getting on a plane.
Yet he's lying to the voters when he says he wants the debates. As even his own biographer is admitting.
I think you're confusing your Isabels.
Isabel Oakeshott, his biographer, tweeted "DC will be more than confident going head to head with @Ed_Miliband in TV debates. And a 7 way debate will hold few fears for him either"
Isabel Hardman, not his biographer, tweeted "Difficult to say anything other than that Cameron is being disingenuous over the TV debates."
They all look the same to Kippers.
I give you a lot of crap, but that was genuinely hilarious.
If rUK had agreed....the point was, it was not within Salmond's gift.....
None of these were promises made by Salmond and none of them were lies. An expectation or prediction is not a lie.
Citizenship was demonstrably true (Ireland). The UK government refused to request an EU decision on membership. Currency Union was virtually certain to stop the gradual Devaluation of Sterling turning into a crash. Oil price was the best prediction at the time and provided by Sir Ian Wood before the UK government bought him.
BUT and this is important. The referendum is over, it's time that Loyalists moved on and dealt with the issues of today, such as delivering Home Rule as promised by Better Together to swing the vote. The people of Scotland are speaking on this - they trust only the SNP to ensure that the Vow is delivered and a clear majority believe Smith does not go far enough.
If Loyalists insist on re-fighting the referendum every day, they will continue to be seen as an irrelevance by the electorate.
There was no chance of a currency union, and the only currency that would have got trashed was Scotland's petrocurrency when the oil price fell.
I'm kicking myself that the Scots bottled it. It would have been nice to have some cheap holidays without getting on a plane.
The way the Norwegian Krone has appreciated 20% against the Pound?
There is little belief in your fanciful theories but you missed the core point. You're still fighting the referendum when the result is in and the SNP and Yes supporters have moved on. Fighting last years battle will only lose you the war.
US marginal oil and gas producers thrown under the wheels in order to get Vlad put in his box. You can see why so many world leaders wanted to be in Saudi Arabia this past week - they have performed admirably in trashing the Russian economy.
It was the US producers that caused Saudi Arabia to have to accept a lower oil price, not the other way around.
In due course I think you will find it was a little cosier an arrangement than the Saudis having a pre-emptive strike to preserve their market share... That being the outcome made it a very easy strategy to get behind.
Medium term the Saudis need oil north of $85 to keep afloat. When I was last there it was pointed out that they have a very young population that is expected to grow rapidly - and they need massive investment in infrastructure to support it.
If rUK had agreed....the point was, it was not within Salmond's gift.....
The referendum is over, it's time that Loyalists moved on and dealt with the issues of today
Like the Scottish Government's assessment on the impact of the oil price fall on Scottish revenues and hence public services in any Devo-settlement?
Like that you mean?
Or is that just to be ignored as 'fighting Indyref again'?
If the Westminster parties had any confidence at all in their flawed arguments about a weak Scottish economy, Full Fiscal Autonomy would be granted instantly.
US marginal oil and gas producers thrown under the wheels in order to get Vlad put in his box. You can see why so many world leaders wanted to be in Saudi Arabia this past week - they have performed admirably in trashing the Russian economy.
It was the US producers that caused Saudi Arabia to have to accept a lower oil price, not the other way around.
In due course I think you will find it was a little cosier an arrangement than the Saudis having a pre-emptive strike to preserve their market share... That being the outcome made it a very easy strategy to get behind.
Medium term the Saudis need oil north of $85 to keep afloat. When I was last there it was pointed out that they have a very young population that is expected to grow rapidly - and they need massive investment in infrastructure to support it.
But Saudi hasn't increased production, so how, exactly has it carried out this pre-emptive strike?
If rUK had agreed....the point was, it was not within Salmond's gift.....
None of these were promises made by Salmond and none of them were lies. An expectation or prediction is not a lie.
Citizenship was demonstrably true (Ireland). The UK government refused to request an EU decision on membership. Currency Union was virtually certain to stop the gradual Devaluation of Sterling turning into a crash. Oil price was the best prediction at the time and provided by Sir Ian Wood before the UK government bought him.
BUT and this is important. The referendum is over, it's time that Loyalists moved on and dealt with the issues of today, such as delivering Home Rule as promised by Better Together to swing the vote. The people of Scotland are speaking on this - they trust only the SNP to ensure that the Vow is delivered and a clear majority believe Smith does not go far enough.
If Loyalists insist on re-fighting the referendum every day, they will continue to be seen as an irrelevance by the electorate.
Loyalists? Just so I'm straight on this you believe that the Borders, Edinburgh, Orkney, Shetland, Aberdeenshire, Perthshire etc. are hotbeds of militant Protestanism?
I really hope they do, if only to give their people representation in the Commons, but also because they currently see no problem with sitting in Stormont or the "usurper" Parliament in Dublin.
They won't take their seats. Never have and never will...
But in the extremely unlikely scenario of Con + DUP = 324 seats and they agree a minority coalition, would SF take their seats in anticipation of a vote of confidence?
They'd at least think about it, surely?
Not even for a second.
What difference would PM Cameron or PM Miliband make to them anyway?
Serious question - what if Mr C was willing to give the DUP something very nice indeed?
Yet he's lying to the voters when he says he wants the debates. As even his own biographer is admitting.
I think you're confusing your Isabels.
Isabel Oakeshott, his biographer, tweeted "DC will be more than confident going head to head with @Ed_Miliband in TV debates. And a 7 way debate will hold few fears for him either"
Isabel Hardman, not his biographer, tweeted "Difficult to say anything other than that Cameron is being disingenuous over the TV debates."
If rUK had agreed....the point was, it was not within Salmond's gift.....
None of these were promises made by Salmond and none of them were lies. An expectation or prediction is not a lie.
Citizenship was demonstrably true (Ireland). The UK government refused to request an EU decision on membership. Currency Union was virtually certain to stop the gradual Devaluation of Sterling turning into a crash. Oil price was the best prediction at the time and provided by Sir Ian Wood before the UK government bought him.
BUT and this is important. The referendum is over, it's time that Loyalists moved on and dealt with the issues of today, such as delivering Home Rule as promised by Better Together to swing the vote. The people of Scotland are speaking on this - they trust only the SNP to ensure that the Vow is delivered and a clear majority believe Smith does not go far enough.
If Loyalists insist on re-fighting the referendum every day, they will continue to be seen as an irrelevance by the electorate.
There was no chance of a currency union, and the only currency that would have got trashed was Scotland's petrocurrency when the oil price fell.
I'm kicking myself that the Scots bottled it. It would have been nice to have some cheap holidays without getting on a plane.
The way the Norwegian Krone has appreciated 20% against the Pound?
There is little belief in your fanciful theories but you missed the core point. You're still fighting the referendum when the result is in and the SNP and Yes supporters have moved on. Fighting last years battle will only lose you the war.
And that's Norway, a highly educated and diversified economy. Other than oil, the only things Scotland's economy has going for it are banks that would have left to place with a lender of last resort, a handful of breweries, and some deep-fried pizza places in Glasgow.
If rUK had agreed....the point was, it was not within Salmond's gift.....
None of these were promises made by Salmond and none of them were lies. An expectation or prediction is not a lie.
Citizenship was demonstrably true (Ireland). The UK government refused to request an EU decision on membership. Currency Union was virtually certain to stop the gradual Devaluation of Sterling turning into a crash. Oil price was the best prediction at the time and provided by Sir Ian Wood before the UK government bought him.
BUT and this is important. The referendum is over, it's time that Loyalists moved on and dealt with the issues of today, such as delivering Home Rule as promised by Better Together to swing the vote. The people of Scotland are speaking on this - they trust only the SNP to ensure that the Vow is delivered and a clear majority believe Smith does not go far enough.
If Loyalists insist on re-fighting the referendum every day, they will continue to be seen as an irrelevance by the electorate.
There was no chance of a currency union, and the only currency that would have got trashed was Scotland's petrocurrency when the oil price fell.
I'm kicking myself that the Scots bottled it. It would have been nice to have some cheap holidays without getting on a plane.
The way the Norwegian Krone has appreciated 20% against the Pound?
There is little belief in your fanciful theories but you missed the core point. You're still fighting the referendum when the result is in and the SNP and Yes supporters have moved on. Fighting last years battle will only lose you the war.
And that's Norway, a highly educated and diversified economy. Other than oil, the only things Scotland's economy has going for it are banks that would have left to place with a lender of last resort, a handful of breweries, and some deep-fried pizza places in Glasgow.
If rUK had agreed....the point was, it was not within Salmond's gift.....
None of these were promises made by Salmond and none of them were lies. An expectation or prediction is not a lie.
Citizenship was demonstrably true (Ireland). The UK government refused to request an EU decision on membership. Currency Union was virtually certain to stop the gradual Devaluation of Sterling turning into a crash. Oil price was the best prediction at the time and provided by Sir Ian Wood before the UK government bought him.
BUT and this is important. The referendum is over, it's time that Loyalists moved on and dealt with the issues of today, such as delivering Home Rule as promised by Better Together to swing the vote. The people of Scotland are speaking on this - they trust only the SNP to ensure that the Vow is delivered and a clear majority believe Smith does not go far enough.
If Loyalists insist on re-fighting the referendum every day, they will continue to be seen as an irrelevance by the electorate.
Loyalists? Just so I'm straight on this you believe that the Borders, Edinburgh, Orkney, Shetland, Aberdeenshire, Perthshire etc. are hotbeds of militant Protestanism?
You seem to be rather limiting your vocabulary.
'loy·al·ist (loi′ə-lĭst) n. 1. One who maintains loyalty to an established government, political party, or sovereign, especially during war or revolutionary change. 2. Loyalist See Tory. 3. Loyalist One who supported the established government of Spain during the Spanish Civil War.'
I've been willing to bet you on this based on the terms Cameron has stated, and you've run away like a scared little girl.
I'm happy to bet you £50 at evens that Cameron will not have a referendum on a finalised renegotiation, signed off by all parties that need to sign off, by the end of 2017. If Cameron is not PM, bets are off. Deal?
I'm happy to bet, as I have repeatedly said, up to £1000 at Evens, that Cameron will keep his pledge to hold an EU In/Out Referendum by the end of 2017, if he has a majority after the election. Bet void if no majority.
It could not be a simpler offer. I'll even happily take the risk that he has a majority in May but loses it through by-elections. Any Kipper who, ludicrously, claims Cameron cannot be trusted and will welch out of the referendum is invited to apply. No-one has, of course, because they are lying when they claim they believe he can't be trusted.
As for your proposed bet, what on earth are you going on about? No-one, certainly not me or Cameron, has ever claimed the renegotiation will be 'signed off by all parties' by the end of 2017. Cameron has promised an In/Out referendum, which is what the Kippers say they want. They can get it, if they vote Conservative in sufficient numbers. And they know it, which is why they don't take my bet,.
If rUK had agreed....the point was, it was not within Salmond's gift.....
None of these were promises made by Salmond and none of them were lies. An expectation or prediction is not a lie.
Citizenship was demonstrably true (Ireland). The UK government refused to request an EU decision on membership. Currency Union was virtually certain to stop the gradual Devaluation of Sterling turning into a crash. Oil price was the best prediction at the time and provided by Sir Ian Wood before the UK government bought him.
BUT and this is important. The referendum is over, it's time that Loyalists moved on and dealt with the issues of today, such as delivering Home Rule as promised by Better Together to swing the vote. The people of Scotland are speaking on this - they trust only the SNP to ensure that the Vow is delivered and a clear majority believe Smith does not go far enough.
If Loyalists insist on re-fighting the referendum every day, they will continue to be seen as an irrelevance by the electorate.
There was no chance of a currency union, and the only currency that would have got trashed was Scotland's petrocurrency when the oil price fell.
I'm kicking myself that the Scots bottled it. It would have been nice to have some cheap holidays without getting on a plane.
Just because the politicians said there would be no currency union, at the end of the day the money markets would have driven the decision. I think we would have ended up with a temporary ''Currency Co-operation Pact'' ie currency union in everything but name, to save the politicians faces.
If rUK had agreed....the point was, it was not within Salmond's gift.....
None of these were promises made by Salmond and none of them were lies. An expectation or prediction is not a lie.
Citizenship was demonstrably true (Ireland). The UK government refused to request an EU decision on membership. Currency Union was virtually certain to stop the gradual Devaluation of Sterling turning into a crash. Oil price was the best prediction at the time and provided by Sir Ian Wood before the UK government bought him.
BUT and this is important. The referendum is over, it's time that Loyalists moved on and dealt with the issues of today, such as delivering Home Rule as promised by Better Together to swing the vote. The people of Scotland are speaking on this - they trust only the SNP to ensure that the Vow is delivered and a clear majority believe Smith does not go far enough.
If Loyalists insist on re-fighting the referendum every day, they will continue to be seen as an irrelevance by the electorate.
There was no chance of a currency union, and the only currency that would have got trashed was Scotland's petrocurrency when the oil price fell.
I'm kicking myself that the Scots bottled it. It would have been nice to have some cheap holidays without getting on a plane.
The way the Norwegian Krone has appreciated 20% against the Pound?
There is little belief in your fanciful theories but you missed the core point. You're still fighting the referendum when the result is in and the SNP and Yes supporters have moved on. Fighting last years battle will only lose you the war.
And that's Norway, a highly educated and diversified economy. Other than oil, the only things Scotland's economy has going for it are banks that would have left to place with a lender of last resort, a handful of breweries, and some deep-fried pizza places in Glasgow.
Distilleries, not breweries. And there are well over 100. However, in general I take your point.
If rUK had agreed....the point was, it was not within Salmond's gift.....
The referendum is over, it's time that Loyalists moved on and dealt with the issues of today
Like the Scottish Government's assessment on the impact of the oil price fall on Scottish revenues and hence public services in any Devo-settlement?
Like that you mean?
Or is that just to be ignored as 'fighting Indyref again'?
If the Westminster parties had any confidence at all in their flawed arguments about a weak Scottish economy, Full Fiscal Autonomy would be granted instantly.
I know its an obscure subject, but 'currency union without fiscal transfers' has proved problematical......
If rUK had agreed....the point was, it was not within Salmond's gift.....
None of these were promises made by Salmond and none of them were lies. An expectation or prediction is not a lie.
Citizenship was demonstrably true (Ireland). The UK government refused to request an EU decision on membership. Currency Union was virtually certain to stop the gradual Devaluation of Sterling turning into a crash. Oil price was the best prediction at the time and provided by Sir Ian Wood before the UK government bought him.
BUT and this is important. The referendum is over, it's time that Loyalists moved on and dealt with the issues of today, such as delivering Home Rule as promised by Better Together to swing the vote. The people of Scotland are speaking on this - they trust only the SNP to ensure that the Vow is delivered and a clear majority believe Smith does not go far enough.
If Loyalists insist on re-fighting the referendum every day, they will continue to be seen as an irrelevance by the electorate.
Loyalists? Just so I'm straight on this you believe that the Borders, Edinburgh, Orkney, Shetland, Aberdeenshire, Perthshire etc. are hotbeds of militant Protestanism?
It seems to be part of an escalating game of silliness where the few pbc posters who long for the days of non-stop chat about the independence referendum try to relive the highs by saying that Scotland has nothing of value besides deep-fried pizza places or that unionists tried to burn down the only 'yes' supporting newspaper in Scotland. Be nice, going cold turkey on Scottish independence talk has been difficult for some posters.
Comments
It is worthwhile noticing the weights attached to each segment of the economy in calculating the GDP figures.
In order of size:
Business services and finance: 31% weighting, growth .9
Government and other: 23%, 0
Retail etc: 14% , 1.3
Transport and communications: 10%, 1.1
Manufacturing:10%, .1
Construction: 6%, -1.8
Mining (incl oil & gas): 2%, -.6
Utilities: 2%, -.8
Agriculture:1%, 1.3
So Government is only 23% of the economy but requires a far larger tax take to fund benefits etc (which do not effect GDP themselves).
A separatist, unilateralist party with its hands on the levers of UK government, courtesy of Labour?
If the 1983 manifesto was the longest suicide note, this idea would count as one of the shortest...
When the government gets out of the way and lets people come and go freely, as they have to with EU migration, they end up turning a profit.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11371480/Man-accused-of-having-sex-with-a-Shetland-pony-was-found-smelling-strongly-of-horses.html
Warning: article describes allegations of sexual interhorse.
Northerners do pride themselves on how friendly they are. Which of us if we lived in Miliband's constitchency might not also become a bit unhinged?
I can't see it happening. The SNP will do everything in their power to make Cameron PM, whilst trying to give precisely the opposite impression.
Business services includes, finance, insurance, real estate, professional, scientific and technical, administrative and support activities.
Transport and communication includes transport and storage and information and communication.
Retail includes wholesale and retail, motor vehicle repair, accommodation and food services.
Workers in the construction industry are naming their own price - hardly evidence of a non-performing economy.
Labour destroyed 7% of the economy, we have done remarkably well considering.
To be fair you do give us all a laugh.
I keep getting the feeling labour is in line to get an almighty shellacking in May, but I'm still not sure if its heart over head.
A part-ELBOW for the five polls so far this week (YG/ComRes/Survation/Ash/Pop) gives:
Con 32.7%
Lab 32.3%
UKIP 16.1%
LD 7.4%
Green 6.2%
CON LEAD of 0.4%!!!
Caveat Emptor - this is a part-ELBOW, it's only Tuesday! Still, this time last week, I reported a similar crossover but it was a far smaller, only 0.06%!
Also, critics of the ELBOW methodology may be interested to know that a simple average of these five polls ALSO gives a Tory lead of 0.4%!
Pedantry central: the Sunil Psephological Analysis Team (SPAT) have noted that Ashcroft's Table 7 should really read Lab 181, Con 177, UKIP 83, LD 40 (NOT 36), Grn 50, base 562 (NOT 559), bumping the LDs up to 7%.
It makes sense as they could do deals with both the SNP and Lib Dems on different things and wouldn't be at the mercy of one party. I imagine they'd have to work with the Lib Dems to pass their budgets as SNP are anti austerity.
Asked on Sky if Labour could form a coalition with the SNP, Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, replied:
No. And I don’t think anybody is suggesting any suggestion of a deal with the SNP at all. We’re fighting hard for a majority.
This is noticeably firmer than the line that Ed Miliband adopted when he was asked this question on the Andrew Marr show recently. He played down the prospect of a deal with the SNP, but pointedly refused to rule it out.
But does Balls’ line mean very much. Probably not. You expect politicians to say they are not contemplating coalition, and Balls’ comment sounded more like a rhetorical no than a cast-iron pledge never, ever to work with the SNP. If Labour do countenance a pact with the SNP at this stage, then they are effectively giving Labour-leaning voters in Scotland a free pass to vote SNP and so, even if Labour figures are planning a deal with the SNP, they are not likely to say so.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/jan/27/cameron-and-milibands-morning-interviews-politics-live-blog#block-54c774e8e4b089fc3733621a
I don't think the bet you are offering is the riposte you think it is if I am honest, but good luck all the same
If Lab < 326, but Lab + SNP > 326:
You bet:
Full coalition (including ministers)
I bet:
Any other arrangement including Lab minority with C&S, or some kind of enhanced C&S (without ministers)
Obviously, a very high chance of a void.
Like Artist, I expect a Labour minority government.
I've not personally ruled out a coalition though and did stick £25 on at 10-1 and £10 on SNP-LD-LAB @ 25s recently.
Will boost the SNP in Scotland, and ... kill Labour everywhere else.
Although, if SF did suddenly hold the balance of power, it's not inconceivable that they might do some kind of deal...
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/10/will-sinn-fein-mps-take-their-seats-after-next-election
I've been willing to bet you on this based on the terms Cameron has stated, and you've run away like a scared little girl.
I'm happy to bet you £50 at evens that Cameron will not have a referendum on a finalised renegotiation, signed off by all parties that need to sign off, by the end of 2017. If Cameron is not PM, bets are off. Deal?
Thanks for that. On checking, it was reported at the time by the [daily] Herald itself as follows, which is what TUD and I evidently remember:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/police-investigation-into-fire-at-herald-office.25385303
But it backtracked later the same day with a tweet along the lines you mention and I can't find that it printed any more.
It did seem odd to me at the time precisely because the Herald and the Evening Times were also affected, as oyu sa.y. Mention of the rioting reminded me that I didn't remember seeing anything more about it, which is why I was asking what the longer term story was ( and hence my wording).
When has Alex Salmond ever promised anything he couldn't deliver?
Like;
-A currency Union, or
-Automatic EU membership, or
-Joint citizenship with rUK, or
-$110 oil?
Next you'll be suggesting he makes stuff up - when did he ever do that?
It was worth a try.
' I say that I'm prepared to defy the whips if I disagree with them'
How many times in the 13 years you were in parliament did you defy the whips?
- a fire in a bin
- outside an empty shop, which
- had been covered in Yes posters and which left
- the shop and posters undamaged?
Or was this another 'Unionist Outrage!' which had as much substance as one of Eck's promises?
Before holding a poll, Cameron has pledged to renegotiate the terms of the UK membership with other member states.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/04/cameron-early-referendum-britain-eu-membership
"When we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simply 'in' or out' choice"
DUP-UKIP
Con
Lib Dems
Lab
SNP-PC
A big question is:
Will the Lib Dems enter into supply & confidence (Or coalition) with the Conservatives if DUP/UKIP are in supply and confidence themselves ?
- a fire in a bin
- outside an empty shop, which
- had been covered in Yes posters and which left
- the shop and posters undamaged?
Or was this another 'Unionist Outrage!' which had as much substance as one of Eck's promises?
It was the fact that it was the least likely newspaper in Scotland to moan about Unionist outrage that struck both TUD (I assume) and me. And I did not say there had been any firereaising - just that I wondered what the outcome was. You might want to recall the Unionist pol in Edinburgh who got hysterical about one Yes sticker on his window, and some graffiti that on inspection were just the usual local neds' territorial slogans.
I'm still waiting to see the final tally of indyref violence, but so far as I know Labour pols from down south are leading comfortably in the political activist stakes.
http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-cut-to-junk-by-sp-2015-1
They'd at least think about it, surely?
More importantly, this is a morning where no opinion poll so far today has shown the Tories ahead of Labour...
Time for a thread on that?
What difference would PM Cameron or PM Miliband make to them anyway?
Citizenship was demonstrably true (Ireland).
The UK government refused to request an EU decision on membership.
Currency Union was virtually certain to stop the gradual Devaluation of Sterling turning into a crash.
Oil price was the best prediction at the time and provided by Sir Ian Wood before the UK government bought him.
BUT and this is important. The referendum is over, it's time that Loyalists moved on and dealt with the issues of today, such as delivering Home Rule as promised by Better Together to swing the vote. The people of Scotland are speaking on this - they trust only the SNP to ensure that the Vow is delivered and a clear majority believe Smith does not go far enough.
If Loyalists insist on re-fighting the referendum every day, they will continue to be seen as an irrelevance by the electorate.
Isabel Oakeshott, his biographer, tweeted "DC will be more than confident going head to head with @Ed_Miliband in TV debates. And a 7 way debate will hold few fears for him either"
Isabel Hardman, not his biographer, tweeted "Difficult to say anything other than that Cameron is being disingenuous over the TV debates."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1310342/Coalition-wants-Sinn-Fein-MPs-seats-Parliament.html
By the way, if you don't mind me asking, would you say you were more of a Watermelon or a Mango? ;-)
I'm kicking myself that the Scots bottled it. It would have been nice to have some cheap holidays without getting on a plane.
Like that you mean?
Or is that just to be ignored as 'fighting Indyref again'?
There is little belief in your fanciful theories but you missed the core point. You're still fighting the referendum when the result is in and the SNP and Yes supporters have moved on. Fighting last years battle will only lose you the war.
Medium term the Saudis need oil north of $85 to keep afloat. When I was last there it was pointed out that they have a very young population that is expected to grow rapidly - and they need massive investment in infrastructure to support it.
Leaving aside the concept of "the Union" for a moment, just look at Greece.
Just done interview for the View BBC on SF position on a hung Gov. Sinn Fein will not be taking our seats
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-10/norway-s-krone-drops-to-five-year-low-on-oil-slump-norges-bank.html
And that's Norway, a highly educated and diversified economy. Other than oil, the only things Scotland's economy has going for it are banks that would have left to place with a lender of last resort, a handful of breweries, and some deep-fried pizza places in Glasgow.
'loy·al·ist
(loi′ə-lĭst)
n.
1. One who maintains loyalty to an established government, political party, or sovereign, especially during war or revolutionary change.
2. Loyalist See Tory.
3. Loyalist One who supported the established government of Spain during the Spanish Civil War.'
Tommy Robinson @TRobinsonNewEra 4m4 minutes ago
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2926375/Paris-Charlie-Hebdo-extremists-murdered-17-people-not-called-terrorists-says-BBC-executive.html … Charlie Hebdo killers should NOT be called 'terrorists', claims BBC executive.
It could not be a simpler offer. I'll even happily take the risk that he has a majority in May but loses it through by-elections. Any Kipper who, ludicrously, claims Cameron cannot be trusted and will welch out of the referendum is invited to apply. No-one has, of course, because they are lying when they claim they believe he can't be trusted.
As for your proposed bet, what on earth are you going on about? No-one, certainly not me or Cameron, has ever claimed the renegotiation will be 'signed off by all parties' by the end of 2017. Cameron has promised an In/Out referendum, which is what the Kippers say they want. They can get it, if they vote Conservative in sufficient numbers. And they know it, which is why they don't take my bet,.