"I think it started yesterday because I posted a response to a silly claim you made on Sunday night.
Arguing about whether it is day 2 or day 3 is about as productive as the main discussion."
Don't beat yourself up, Charles. From what I can gather, the "silly claim that you responded to" was something you had mistaken as a "joke".
"You've yet to actually put up any evidence to support your claim."
The life expectancy figures are a matter of record, Charles. You can huff and you can puff but they are there in black and white. This has happened on London's watch.
That's a big claim - that political systems directly affect outcomes
Big claim? Is it?
Surely it's just a statement of the bleeding obvious?
I was being lazy - clearly between different classes of political system (e.g. dictatorship vs democracy) it would be different.
My point is that, assuming an independent Scotland would be a mature Western democracy (rather than, say, an oil-fueled one party state) then the *system* doesn't have an impact
"My point is that, assuming an independent Scotland would be a mature Western democracy (rather than, say, an oil-fueled one party state) then the *system* doesn't have an impact"
What evidence do you have that a Labour government in an independent Scotland in the 1980s would have pursued Thatcherite economic policies, and privatised major industries?
"Your claim was that this is *because of the Union*. Not because of policies implemented"
Charles, for your own sake, I strongly advise you to stop flogging this dead horse. Policies implemented are only implemented because of the union. We would not have had the Thatcher government, or the Cameron government, or the Heath government (or even the Macmillan government after 1959) without the union. That is a fact.
I was going to start this post by accusing you of 'hair-splitting', but it's not even that - the distinction you're attempting to draw just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The fact that an intelligent man like you can't seem to see that is extraordinary.
You're confusing outcomes with system.
An independent Scotland may have elected different governments with different policies and different outcomes. But this isn't because of the system (assuming that an independent Scotland would be a mature Western democracy) - it's because of the government.
Saying "I don't like the outcome" doesn't mean it's a failing of the system. It's a failing of those actors who supported your cause and failed to make their case successfully (even despite a large proportion of Scottish MPs - by seat or background - in the ruling party for much of the post war period)
"My point is that, assuming an independent Scotland would be a mature Western democracy (rather than, say, an oil-fueled one party state) then the *system* doesn't have an impact"
What evidence do you have that a Labour government in an independent Scotland in the 1980s would have pursued Thatcherite economic policies, and privatised major industries?
That's a failing of the advocates for a non-Thatcher government to make a persuasive case, not a failure of the system.
An independent Scotland may have elected different governments with different policies and different outcomes. But this isn't because of the system (assuming that an independent Scotland would be a mature Western democracy) - it's because of the government."
But the government would not be there in the first place without the system. For the love of God, man, your argument isn't going anywhere. If you didn't realise that before, you surely must do by now.
I hope the Lib Dems have drawn up plans for how the Coalition can continue without David Cameron as Tory leader http://bit.ly/14p9Hsf
That there is no imminent prospect of either scenario does not nullify the truth that both parties have looked and are looking long and hard at their contingency plans lest things get 'out of hand' shall we say.
An independent Scotland may have elected different governments with different policies and different outcomes. But this isn't because of the system (assuming that an independent Scotland would be a mature Western democracy) - it's because of the government."
But the government would not be there in the first place without the system. For the love of God, man, your argument isn't going anywhere. If you didn't realise that before, you surely must do by now.
But the system did not create the government.
Bluntly speaking, James, you are speaking bollocks because you don't understand the basics of political theory. You need to distinguish between systems, government, policies and outcomes.
You may personally dislike the government that was chosen. This isn't the fault of the system - it's the failure of people on the left to persuade a majority of the electorate to agree with them.
If you are playing Monopoly you can't claim that you would have won the game if the rules had been the same as Cluedo.
"But they had already been in sole control for 250 years."
I think you may have just put your finger on why Scottish nationalism surged from the 1960s onwards. The union used to work for Scotland. It stopped working.
But the union did not change, at least until 1997.. So why did the Scots? Why did they turn their back on the opportunities and develop the incredibly self destructive societal norms that we have today with more drinking, more smoking, more obesity?
It is a sociologically interesting phenomenon but I find it very hard to believe that politics has much to do with it.
"I think it started yesterday because I posted a response to a silly claim you made on Sunday night.
Arguing about whether it is day 2 or day 3 is about as productive as the main discussion."
Don't beat yourself up, Charles. From what I can gather, the "silly claim that you responded to" was something you had mistaken as a "joke".
"You've yet to actually put up any evidence to support your claim."
The life expectancy figures are a matter of record, Charles. You can huff and you can puff but they are there in black and white. This has happened on London's watch.
That's a big claim - that political systems directly affect outcomes
Big claim? Is it?
Surely it's just a statement of the bleeding obvious?
I was being lazy - clearly between different classes of political system (e.g. dictatorship vs democracy) it would be different.
My point is that, assuming an independent Scotland would be a mature Western democracy (rather than, say, an oil-fueled one party state) then the *system* doesn't have an impact
A *system* whereby Scotland is an independent nation would have a different Government. I'm sure you can agree with that?
As I've said, I'm against independence on balance. But unionists really should at least try to understand the arguments in favour of it, otherwise they're done for.
"That's a failing of the advocates for a non-Thatcher government to make a persuasive case, not a failure of the system."
Either I need a translator, or that sentence makes no logical sense whatsoever. The advocates for a non-Thatcher government in Scotland won. They won in 1979, 1983 and 1987. Therefore, without the union, Thatcherism would not have happened in Scotland. Therefore, the effects of Thatcherite economic policy on Scottish life expectancy - whatever they were - would not have occurred without the union.
David Cameron was a SpAd in the Home Office in 1993 when this was going on. Although judging by his performance at Leveson I doubt whether he can remember what country he lived in that far back
Perhaps asking if had he partaken of any pasties during that crucial period might be more fruitful? I suspect they may even have been "large ones".
"But the union did not change, at least until 1997.. So why did the Scots? Why did they turn their back on the opportunities and develop the incredibly self destructive societal norms that we have today with more drinking, more smoking, more obesity?
It is a sociologically interesting phenomenon but I find it very hard to believe that politics has much to do with it."
What you have just outlined is what some of us know as the 'unionist trance'.
Just an observation..the only fat people to come out of Aushwitz were the Guards.If you eat too much you get fat ..solution eat less and be careful what you eat..If you drink too much you get a myriad of life threatening diseases..cut down on the booze..If you smoke too much then ditto the drinking.No exercise ontop of all of that is probably a life threatener too. I await the edicts from Westminster that tells Scots to do all of that. And why did they miss all the other deprived areas of the UK..Scandal, we demand an enquiry, now.
"I think it started yesterday because I posted a response to a silly claim you made on Sunday night.
Arguing about whether it is day 2 or day 3 is about as productive as the main discussion."
Don't beat yourself up, Charles. From what I can gather, the "silly claim that you responded to" was something you had mistaken as a "joke".
"You've yet to actually put up any evidence to support your claim."
The life expectancy figures are a matter of record, Charles. You can huff and you can puff but they are there in black and white. This has happened on London's watch.
You are a parody of the worst stereotypes the right makes of the left: A total and utter failure to prescribe any responsibility for their own lives over their own actions. Everything bad is the government's fault, even if it varies from elsewhere under the same government under the same policies.
The best measure of expected longevity has to be the life assurance rates changed by region doesn't it? I've tried to find time series of this data, but haven't succeeded, but surely there's an actuary who can help?
@Mike : No, but graph life expectancy versus trade union membership and you'd get an interesting although wholly misleading graph.
"That's a failing of the advocates for a non-Thatcher government to make a persuasive case, not a failure of the system."
Either I need a translator, or that sentence makes no logical sense whatsoever. The advocates for a non-Thatcher government in Scotland won. They won in 1979, 1983 and 1987. Therefore, without the union, Thatcherism would not have happened in Scotland. Therefore, the effects of Thatcherite economic policy on Scottish life expectancy - whatever they were - would not have occurred without the union.
These are facts. They are irrefutable.
If you're going to argue on that point, then England would be better off / had a right of centre government and we would have been spared the horrors of Brown.
You could take the point further and argue for government on a local level. I'm sure the citizens of Dunblane, to take one example of a relatively well off town, would be better off if they didn't have to subsidise the less well off parts of Glasgow.
"Everything bad is the government's fault, even if it varies from elsewhere under the same government under the same policies."
Dear God. Are you seriously now praying in aid the fact that the outcomes vary in different parts of the UK under the same government? That is exactly what we're charging the UK government with. Did you really not notice that?
What I find very strange is that there was little difference in Scottish life expectancy until the 1950s. Putting aside the unfortunate growth of the SNP from the early 1960s onwards it is very difficult to see how Westminster rule could therefore be a factor.
Scotland certainly had its full share of heavy industry, mining and ship building with added asbestos but did it really have more than, say, Newcastle? Glasgow is a depressing place but it is still at least as nice as Liverpool.
Scots drink a lot more than the UK average. Have we simply not shared the English obsession with house buying and spent too much on the drink?
For a good chunk of my life there has been something of an obsession amongst Scots about not being better than you are, not forgetting where you come from, discouraging aspirational sorts in a way that 19th century Scots would have found bewildering as they helped to build an empire. The reasons behind this are complex but it clearly does not help.
It's colder and darker in Scotland for much of the year and will be whatever the political system. I wonder if Scotland actually had a better health system to the rest of the UK prior to the NHS and that this may have masked issues that were already there. Once there was universal healthcare across the UK, the other countries overtook Scotland. Hence the gap from the early 50s onwards.
But it has to be more than coincidence that the life expectany disparity accelerated from the 1980s, at exactly the time as heavy industry declined. Across the UK where htis happened life expectancy rates are comparatively low. But Scotland was especially dependent on this kind of industry. I'd say there is a reasonable case to make that if Westminster had used the oil money to ameliorate deindustrialisation, not just in Scotland but in the north of England, South Wales and elsewhere, this woul not be such an issue now. But Westminster made other choices. On that basis it seems perfectly reasonable to me to argue that Westminster can be directly blamed for lower life expectancy in Scotland. However, that is not the same as it being the Union's fault. If Westminster had made different choices the outcome would have been different. But the Union would still hae existed.
Therefore, the effects of Thatcherite economic policy on Scottish life expectancy - whatever they were.
You don't know? No change there then!
In the unlikely event you are interested in the data:
"........expectation of life at birth in Scotland has improved greatly over the last 25 years or so, increasing from 69.1 years for men and 75.3 years for women born around 1981 to 76.1 years and 80.6 years respectively for those born around 2010."
It's colder and darker in Scotland for much of the year and will be whatever the political system. I wonder if Scotland actually had a better health system to the rest of the UK prior to the NHS and that this may have masked issues that were already there. Once there was universal healthcare across the UK, the other countries overtook Scotland. Hence the gap from the early 50s onwards.
But it has to be more than coincidence that the life expectany disparity accelerated from the 1980s, at exactly the time as heavy industry declined. Across the UK where htis happened life expectancy rates are comparatively low. But Scotland was especially dependent on this kind of industry. I'd say there is a reasonable case to make that if Westminster had used the oil money to ameliorate deindustrialisation, not just in Scotland but in the north of England, South Wales and elsewhere, this woul not be such an issue now. But Westminster made other choices. On that basis it seems perfectly reasonable to me to argue that Westminster can be directly blamed for lower life expectancy in Scotland. However, that is not the same as it being the Union's fault. If Westminster had made different choices the outcome would have been different. But the Union would still hae existed.
Except it wasn't really Westminster, was it. The people made their choice and re-elected said Government time and time again. Wouldn't it be better to blame the English?
Carlotta - you wouldn't be praying in aid ABSOLUTE changes in life expectancy prior to devolution, and RELATIVE changes in life expectancy after devolution? You wouldn't be doing something as transparent as that, would you?
Chortle. Well, at least we now know that you don't actually care about your credibility.
Therefore, the effects of Thatcherite economic policy on Scottish life expectancy - whatever they were.
You don't know? No change there then!
In the unlikely event you are interested in the data:
"........expectation of life at birth in Scotland has improved greatly over the last 25 years or so, increasing from 69.1 years for men and 75.3 years for women born around 1981 to 76.1 years and 80.6 years respectively for those born around 2010."
That's quite a rise. And, of course, for the last 15 years the Scottish government has had control of healthcare policy. It looks like they have been making good decisions.
"I think it started yesterday because I posted a response to a silly claim you made on Sunday night.
Arguing about whether it is day 2 or day 3 is about as productive as the main discussion."
Don't beat yourself up, Charles. From what I can gather, the "silly claim that you responded to" was something you had mistaken as a "joke".
"You've yet to actually put up any evidence to support your claim."
The life expectancy figures are a matter of record, Charles. You can huff and you can puff but they are there in black and white. This has happened on London's watch.
That's a big claim - that political systems directly affect outcomes
Big claim? Is it?
Surely it's just a statement of the bleeding obvious?
I was being lazy - clearly between different classes of political system (e.g. dictatorship vs democracy) it would be different.
My point is that, assuming an independent Scotland would be a mature Western democracy (rather than, say, an oil-fueled one party state) then the *system* doesn't have an impact
A *system* whereby Scotland is an independent nation would have a different Government. I'm sure you can agree with that?
As I've said, I'm against independence on balance. But unionists really should at least try to understand the arguments in favour of it, otherwise they're done for.
But the issue is the government - not the system.
You have no idea how an independent Scotland would have voted. I think it is far more likely that there would have been a traditional left/right split (the Scots have a long heritage of lucid right-wing thinkers) rather than the strange Labour dominance that we have.
"That's a failing of the advocates for a non-Thatcher government to make a persuasive case, not a failure of the system."
Either I need a translator, or that sentence makes no logical sense whatsoever. The advocates for a non-Thatcher government in Scotland won. They won in 1979, 1983 and 1987. Therefore, without the union, Thatcherism would not have happened in Scotland. Therefore, the effects of Thatcherite economic policy on Scottish life expectancy - whatever they were - would not have occurred without the union.
These are facts. They are irrefutable.
No - we are playing Monoploy, not Cluedo.
The advocates of a non-Thatcherite policies failed to win a majority of the House of Commons.
It's colder and darker in Scotland for much of the year and will be whatever the political system. I wonder if Scotland actually had a better health system to the rest of the UK prior to the NHS and that this may have masked issues that were already there. Once there was universal healthcare across the UK, the other countries overtook Scotland. Hence the gap from the early 50s onwards.
But it has to be more than coincidence that the life expectany disparity accelerated from the 1980s, at exactly the time as heavy industry declined. Across the UK where htis happened life expectancy rates are comparatively low. But Scotland was especially dependent on this kind of industry. I'd say there is a reasonable case to make that if Westminster had used the oil money to ameliorate deindustrialisation, not just in Scotland but in the north of England, South Wales and elsewhere, this woul not be such an issue now. But Westminster made other choices. On that basis it seems perfectly reasonable to me to argue that Westminster can be directly blamed for lower life expectancy in Scotland. However, that is not the same as it being the Union's fault. If Westminster had made different choices the outcome would have been different. But the Union would still hae existed.
Except it wasn't really Westminster, was it. The people made their choice and re-elected said Government time and time again. Wouldn't it be better to blame the English?
I'd blame the Westminster system, which saw a huge Parliamentary majority awarded to a party which got significantly less than 50% of the UK-wide vote.
Therefore, the effects of Thatcherite economic policy on Scottish life expectancy - whatever they were.
You don't know? No change there then!
In the unlikely event you are interested in the data:
"........expectation of life at birth in Scotland has improved greatly over the last 25 years or so, increasing from 69.1 years for men and 75.3 years for women born around 1981 to 76.1 years and 80.6 years respectively for those born around 2010."
It looks like they have been making good decisions.
Not as good as the ones in Westminster:
" The UK average is 78.1 years for males and 82.1 years for females and the gap between UK and Scottish life expectancy is now wider than in 1997-1999, by 0.2 years for males and by 0.3 years for females."
the very last person who can recall any conversations had by David Cameron is David Cameron.
Isn't that somewhat true of us all though? The details of what I may or may not have said would surely escape me. I know the themes, but I don't know the detail. Whereas I may recall the precise words someone else used.
Cameron has undoubtedly played down his chumminess with various people from the press, but he's hardly less culpable in that than (say) Brown. Times have moved on, and I'm sure that the estates have moved apart.
On that basis it seems perfectly reasonable to me to argue that Westminster can be directly blamed for lower life expectancy in Scotland. However, that is not the same as it being the Union's fault. If Westminster had made different choices the outcome would have been different. But the Union would still hae existed.
I'd blame the Westminster system, which saw a huge Parliamentary majority awarded to a party which got significantly less than 50% of the UK-wide vote.
In which elections? The ones won by the baby eaters, or all, including the ones won by the 'political arm of the working people'?
I'd blame the Westminster system, which saw a huge Parliamentary majority awarded to a party which got significantly less than 50% of the UK-wide vote.
In which elections? The ones won by the baby eaters, or all, including the ones won by the 'political arm of the working people'?
So let me get this straight - you quoted those figures to prove how fantastic Thatcherism had been for Scotland, but now you're saying they're not quite good enough to prove how awful devolution has been for Scotland?
"Let's say the Act of Union never occured. How do you know that a majority of Scots wouldn't be voting for the Adam Smith party?"
Because he died in 1790? In any case, I think Adam Smith himself might have objected to his name being regarded south of the border as synonymous with Thatcherism.
Scotland traditionally voted against the Tories even in the 19th Century - the brief flirtation with the party in the early mid-to-20th Century can be largely put down to the Liberal Unionist split and sectarianism.
So let me get this straight - you quoted those figures to prove how fantastic Thatcherism had been for Scotland, but now you're saying they're not quite good enough to prove how awful devolution has been for Scotland?
Wow.
No - you made a data free smear about the impact of Thatcherism on Scotland and foolishly I thought you might like the data.
"No - you made a data free smear about the impact of Thatcherism on Scotland and foolishly I thought you might like the data."
So you quoted life expectancy figures which you're now claiming AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH to refute my "smear" about the effect of Thatcherism on Scotland? This is compelling stuff, it can't be denied. With debating skills like that, perhaps your next challenge should be taking on the Doddmeister?
You've got a brass neck, Carlotta. Let's hear your answer to the question I asked three times - what is your explanation for the differential of life expectancy that sprung up under centralised London rule in the 1950s?
4 in the latest batch. Working out what to do with our High Streets is surely going to come up the political priority list. They can't be the cash cows of old but we still want them to provide useful employment as well as services that we want.
This is an ongoing car crash which will have a disproportionate impact on joe public's assessment of how the economy is going.
"Let's say the Act of Union never occured. How do you know that a majority of Scots wouldn't be voting for the Adam Smith party?"
Because he died in 1790? In any case, I think Adam Smith himself might have objected to his name being regarded south of the border as synonymous with Thatcherism.
Scotland traditionally voted against the Tories even in the 19th Century - the brief flirtation with the party in the early mid-to-20th Century can be largely put down to the Liberal Unionist split and sectarianism.
But WHY? According to you there seems to be no reason for a Scot to do anything except due to London.
100% of your actions James seem to trace to London since a Scot can't be responsible for a Scots choices like eating/smoking/drinking/exercise.
You've got a brass neck, Carlotta. Let's hear your answer to the question I asked three times - what is your explanation for the differential of life expectancy that sprung up under centralised London rule in the 1950s?
You do have an answer? Yes? No?
At least the brass has not extended to the top of my cranium!
How did a 250 year old Union suddenly start mis functioning in 1950?
Show us your data on the deleterious effects of Thatcherism on Scottish life expectancy - and explain the worsening of relative life expectancy since devolution...
Erm - I think that was my question. You failed to answer it. WHY do Scots have different 'peer, family and friend pressures etc' to the rest of the UK? You don't think it has anything to do with the centralised London rule under which the phenomenon started happening in the 1950s, so what is the explanation?
Some very interesting data - and the challenge for renegotiation
The powers that the Tory members don't like fall into 3 categories:
1. Absolutely core to Europe: (free movement of people) 2. Too important to the French: agriculture 3. Politically challenging to focus solely on: employment
Leaves possible areas: legal/human rights (but not really EU), fishing and financial regulation.
Getting powers back on fishing, financial regulation and emplyment would be a great negotiation outcome - but doesn't really seem like it would be very satisfying for the BOOers.
And answer came there none! Oh dear! I don't think there is one, folks, but hope springs eternal, I suppose!
"Show us your data on the deleterious effects of Thatcherism on Scottish life expectancy"
You seem to be under the misapprehension that I am claiming to have 'personal' figures. The life expectancy figures are a matter of record. You seem to think they are both good and bad simultaneously. That intellectual confusion is something you'll have to resolve for yourself, I fear.
Never underestimate the capacity of the turnip Taliban to screw it up:
"The Tories are putting off Labour MPs from backing their Private Member’s Bill on an EU referendum with an overly partisan campaign, Coffee House has learned. John Cryer, who chairs Labour for a Referendum, tells me that he won’t be voting for the Bill because the Conservatives have turned it into a party political campaign to shore up their own position, rather than one that genuinely promotes a referendum."
Never underestimate the capacity of the turnip Taliban to screw it up:
"The Tories are putting off Labour MPs from backing their Private Member’s Bill on an EU referendum with an overly partisan campaign, Coffee House has learned. John Cryer, who chairs Labour for a Referendum, tells me that he won’t be voting for the Bill because the Conservatives have turned it into a party political campaign to shore up their own position, rather than one that genuinely promotes a referendum."
Never underestimate the capacity of the turnip Taliban to screw it up:
"The Tories are putting off Labour MPs from backing their Private Member’s Bill on an EU referendum with an overly partisan campaign, Coffee House has learned. John Cryer, who chairs Labour for a Referendum, tells me that he won’t be voting for the Bill because the Conservatives have turned it into a party political campaign to shore up their own position, rather than one that genuinely promotes a referendum."
Some very interesting data - and the challenge for renegotiation
The powers that the Tory members don't like fall into 3 categories:
1. Absolutely core to Europe: (free movement of people) 2. Too important to the French: agriculture 3. Politically challenging to focus solely on: employment
Leaves possible areas: legal/human rights (but not really EU), fishing and financial regulation.
Getting powers back on fishing, financial regulation and emplyment would be a great negotiation outcome - but doesn't really seem like it would be very satisfying for the BOOers.
That involves Cameron saying what he wants to renegotiate. And the whole "strategy" is based around him refusing to do that.
What is "That" to which you are referring?
Neither running a thread nor consulting members need Cameron to do anything
Erm - I think that was my question. You failed to answer it. WHY do Scots have different 'peer, family and friend pressures etc' to the rest of the UK? You don't think it has anything to do with the centralised London rule under which the phenomenon started happening in the 1950s, so what is the explanation?
Genetic? Weather?
For the same reason Liverpool is different to Warrington which is different to Manchester despite being about 20 miles on the M62 between them. Because people are different, because people are individuals and because people don't all act the same. There are always variances one way or the other but we on the right believe that people bear some responsibility for their own actions.
You're so far left-wing that people can't possibly influence their own lives it seems - the government is responsible for it ALL.
If there's a difference between Scotland and similar regions in England then the most likely responsibility is the Scots themselves not "Fatcher" or "Osbrowne" or whatever immature nonsense you want to pull.
Never underestimate the capacity of the turnip Taliban to screw it up:
"The Tories are putting off Labour MPs from backing their Private Member’s Bill on an EU referendum with an overly partisan campaign, Coffee House has learned. John Cryer, who chairs Labour for a Referendum, tells me that he won’t be voting for the Bill because the Conservatives have turned it into a party political campaign to shore up their own position, rather than one that genuinely promotes a referendum."
Never underestimate the capacity of the turnip Taliban to screw it up:
"The Tories are putting off Labour MPs from backing their Private Member’s Bill on an EU referendum with an overly partisan campaign, Coffee House has learned. John Cryer, who chairs Labour for a Referendum, tells me that he won’t be voting for the Bill because the Conservatives have turned it into a party political campaign to shore up their own position, rather than one that genuinely promotes a referendum."
The tea party tories only think government is to blame when it's anyone other than themselves in government. Hence their absurd and childish idiocy that government has little to no effect on people's lives. Might as well get rid of Osborne and Cammie right now then.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that I am claiming to have 'personal' figures. The life expectancy figures are a matter of record.
No - you're just too lazy to research data which you know will demolish your case.
To understand matters Scotch, it is always best to defer to the good Doctor.
Arthur Murphy, an Irishman, wrote about about a conversation he had with Samuel Johnson:
"Have you observed the difference between your own country impudence and Scottish impudence?" The answer being in the negative: "Then I will tell you," said Johnson. "The impudence of an Irishman is the impudence of a fly, that buzzes about you, and you put it away, but it returns again, and flutters and teazes you. The impudence of a Scotsman is the impudence of a leech, that fixes and sucks your blood."
You have the misfortune, Carlotta, of conversing with an impudent man of both Irish and Scotch descent.
You've got a brass neck, Carlotta. Let's hear your answer to the question I asked three times - what is your explanation for the differential of life expectancy that sprung up under centralised London rule in the 1950s?
You do have an answer? Yes? No?
You've got a brass neck. You refused to answer a question repeatedly the other day, saying you only answered questions that interested you.
Despite the question being relevant to the topic on hand. Yet here you are, demanding answers from others.
Or was it that you did not have an answer that would not make you look like a fool?
The whistleblower at the health regulator who had raised concerns over care at the Morecambe Bay NHS foundation trust has accused Andrew Lansley, the former health secretary, of giving an inaccurate account of the circumstances in which she spoke out.
Kay Sheldon, a board member at the troubled Care Quality Commission, disputed Lansley's account of events that he gave in an interview on Sunday, and repeated claims that she had been threatened with being fired.
"Andrew Lansley only backed down because I threatened legal action," Sheldon said. "I heard and read what he has been saying, and it does not accord with the events that happened."
The clash between the whistleblower and the former Conservative health secretary arose after Sheldon became concerned that the CQC had decided to register the failing Morecambe Bay NHS foundation trust as fully compliant – meaning it provided adequate care – in 2010.
Documents seen by the Guardian indicate that Lansley protected Sheldon only after he was faced with criminal proceedings for threatening to sack her.
You've got a brass neck, Carlotta. Let's hear your answer to the question I asked three times - what is your explanation for the differential of life expectancy that sprung up under centralised London rule in the 1950s?
That involves Cameron saying what he wants to renegotiate.
Primacy - The UK Parliament should retain the right to amend all laws active in the UK.
I presume that's the sort of thing he's thinking of.
That sort of thing can't work in a monetary union (such aspirations are why we don't have it). Monetary union implies fiscal union though (as we're finding out).
Hence their absurd and childish idiocy that government has little to no effect on people's lives
So you agree that the relative decline in life expectancy should be laid at the door of the devolved Scottish government?
You still haven't grasped what Devolution is have you dear? Never mind. Suffice to say that nobody really expects tea party tories to understand why limited Devolution is completely different to full self governance or why the scottish public is so in favour of yet more Devolution not less.
Suffice to say that nobody really expects tea party tories to understand why limited Devolution is completely different to full self governance or why the scottish public is so in favour of yet more Devolution not less.
A couple of thoughts
1. You seem to be having a referendum on independence rather than 'more devolution'. 2. There is no such thing as a 'tea party Tory' 3. When does devolution become independence?
@MickPork. "Life expectancy has improved faster than the UK since Scotland got control of Health and will further improve with Independence" is sadly not an argument open to you....
Suffice to say that nobody really expects tea party tories to understand why limited Devolution is completely different to full self governance or why the scottish public is so in favour of yet more Devolution not less.
A couple of thoughts
1. You seem to be having a referendum on independence rather than 'more devolution'. 2. There is no such thing as a 'tea party Tory' 3. When does devolution become independence?
Three is a couple? If you insist.
1. Since the No campaign opposed more devolution then their message of 'Vote No get Nothing' might not be too wise given the scottish public's obvious desire for more devoution. 2. Is there such a thing as a "swivel-eyed loon"? Perhaps Cammie would know? 3. Devolution is a process. Labour still don't understand that nor do many tories.
Independence: 35% Devo max 32% Status quo: 24% No Scottish Parliament: 6%
I no more need to make the case to the scottish public for more Devolution powers than I do for the self-evident fact that limited Devolution will always be inferior to and cannot possibly have the same effect on people's lives as more Devolution and indeed full self-governance.
Yep. He's painted himself into something of a corner, but I think you will agree that something along the lines I suggest would be a logical progression. Politics being what it is, and politicians being quite unimaginative I don't think we'll get such a thing, but Cameron simply has to find something 'sexy' to sell his renegotiated Europe.
I'm reasonably sure we'll have a referendum sometime or other in the next ten years on Europe. I'd quite like there to be a well thought out agenda on both sides.
That involves Cameron saying what he wants to renegotiate.
Primacy - The UK Parliament should retain the right to amend all laws active in the UK.
I presume that's the sort of thing he's thinking of.
That sort of thing can't work in a monetary union (such aspirations are why we don't have it). Monetary union implies fiscal union though (as we're finding out).
You can presume all you want, but Cameron cannot and will not say.
Nor will he say in the run up to the EU elections despite huge pressure to do so. He will rerun this type of party political to persuade the ever gullible tory eurosceptics.
It might even work. I won't work on the kippers but the EU elections will likely be the last time Cammie ever wants to go near the subject lest his backbenchers run about like headless chickens over the EU during the election campaign.
Independence: 35% Devo max 32% Status quo: 24% No Scottish Parliament: 6%
I no more need to make the case to the scottish public for more Devolution powers than I do for the self-evident fact that limited Devolution will always be inferior to and cannot possibly have the same effect on people's lives as more Devolution and indeed full self-governance.
Thsoe in favour of independence and those who want devo-max clearly have different visions of what they would like Scotland to be like in the future. The task is to have them take the same side in appropriate decisions, votes, or support. The task of the SNP is certainly to ensure they retain no-to-independence devo-max voters.
"Primacy - The UK Parliament should retain the right to amend all laws active in the UK."
How does that work? We can, in one sense, at the moment by repealing the 1972 Act. In any other sense the very idea of a common market (social powers of the EU even aside) wouldn't make much sense: standardisation of weights, measures, railways, and all sorts of other standards - except where the UK opts out?
The task is to have them take the same side in appropriate decisions, votes, or support. The task of the SNP is certainly to ensure they retain no-to-independence devo-max voters.
The Yes campaign need to persuade the Devo Max/more powers side that even more powers than Devo Max is the best option while the No campaign need to persuade the Devo Max/more powers side that not just independence but Devo Max and more powers are not required and the best option. The unionist parties made their choice when they all vehemently opposed Devo Max.
"Particularly when he doesn't have one. Everyone knows he'll support the In campaign no matter what he does or doesn't get." Yes. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have a goal. To suggest that he and the "in-ers" will play up any changes and "out-ers" will play it down doesn't mean that the whole shabang is pointless. They'll form the starting point for the debate. So Cameron does have a goal, whatever concessions will tip the balance to "in", but he will claim victory whether he meets that or not.
(On a minor point: Your asserted existence of "swivel eyed loons" doesn't imply that there are "tea party torys".)
However more importantly there simply must be a dividing line between independence and devolution - no matter how blurry. As you have more devolution then you must get closer to independence. So perhaps you should state which things you want to remain common to us all?
That involves Cameron saying what he wants to renegotiate.
Primacy - The UK Parliament should retain the right to amend all laws active in the UK.
I presume that's the sort of thing he's thinking of.
That sort of thing can't work in a monetary union (such aspirations are why we don't have it). Monetary union implies fiscal union though (as we're finding out).
You can presume all you want, but Cameron cannot and will not say.
Nor will he say in the run up to the EU elections despite huge pressure to do so. He will rerun this type of party political to persuade the ever gullible tory eurosceptics.
It might even work. I won't work on the kippers but the EU elections will likely be the last time Cammie ever wants to go near the subject lest his backbenchers run about like headless chickens over the EU during the election campaign.
And some idiots believed voting Tory in June 2009 would get them a Lisbon Referendum. Idiots.
Calm down lad,you have already made a few posters leave the site,your post getting hard edged,must mean tories improving.
"Primacy - The UK Parliament should retain the right to amend all laws active in the UK."
How does that work? We can, in one sense, at the moment by repealing the 1972 Act. In any other sense the very idea of a common market (social powers of the EU even aside) wouldn't make much sense: standardisation of weights, measures, railways, and all sorts of other standards - except where the UK opts out?
Railways? The loading gauge in the UK is different than on the Continent.
"Primacy - The UK Parliament should retain the right to amend all laws active in the UK."
How does that work? We can, in one sense, at the moment by repealing the 1972 Act. In any other sense the very idea of a common market (social powers of the EU even aside) wouldn't make much sense: standardisation of weights, measures, railways, and all sorts of other standards - except where the UK opts out?
Simply my suggestion. I think something like that can be made to work, but it's just a straw in the breeze.
"Particularly when he doesn't have one. Everyone knows he'll support the In campaign no matter what he does or doesn't get." Yes. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have a goal. To suggest that he and the "in-ers" will play up any changes and "out-ers" will play it down doesn't mean that the whole shabang is pointless. They'll form the starting point for the debate. So Cameron does have a goal, whatever concessions will tip the balance to "in", but he will claim victory whether he meets that or not.
It's not pointless because for purely internal party reasons Cammie didn't have a choice. There is no way he could simply promise a referendum and say I will support IN or OUT as a matter of principle. His party and grassroots would go berserk. The entire point is to maintain the illusion of euroscepticism to a party and grassroots which is far from happy with the idea of the tory party and the tory leadership supporting and campaigning to stay IN.
If he leans to much on one side or the other he will expose a party that is quite clearly split on staying IN or OUT. So he will remain reticent.
Comments
My point is that, assuming an independent Scotland would be a mature Western democracy (rather than, say, an oil-fueled one party state) then the *system* doesn't have an impact
What evidence do you have that a Labour government in an independent Scotland in the 1980s would have pursued Thatcherite economic policies, and privatised major industries?
An independent Scotland may have elected different governments with different policies and different outcomes. But this isn't because of the system (assuming that an independent Scotland would be a mature Western democracy) - it's because of the government.
Saying "I don't like the outcome" doesn't mean it's a failing of the system. It's a failing of those actors who supported your cause and failed to make their case successfully (even despite a large proportion of Scottish MPs - by seat or background - in the ruling party for much of the post war period)
I'm off to do something more challenging.
Shooting fish in a barrel sounds fun!
I'm off to do something more challenging.
Shooting fish in a barrel sounds fun!"
I expect that's as gracious an admission of defeat as I can ever expect from you. Have a good evening, and better luck next time.
An independent Scotland may have elected different governments with different policies and different outcomes. But this isn't because of the system (assuming that an independent Scotland would be a mature Western democracy) - it's because of the government."
But the government would not be there in the first place without the system. For the love of God, man, your argument isn't going anywhere. If you didn't realise that before, you surely must do by now.
Bluntly speaking, James, you are speaking bollocks because you don't understand the basics of political theory. You need to distinguish between systems, government, policies and outcomes.
You may personally dislike the government that was chosen. This isn't the fault of the system - it's the failure of people on the left to persuade a majority of the electorate to agree with them.
If you are playing Monopoly you can't claim that you would have won the game if the rules had been the same as Cluedo.
It is a sociologically interesting phenomenon but I find it very hard to believe that politics has much to do with it.
As I've said, I'm against independence on balance. But unionists really should at least try to understand the arguments in favour of it, otherwise they're done for.
"That's a failing of the advocates for a non-Thatcher government to make a persuasive case, not a failure of the system."
Either I need a translator, or that sentence makes no logical sense whatsoever. The advocates for a non-Thatcher government in Scotland won. They won in 1979, 1983 and 1987. Therefore, without the union, Thatcherism would not have happened in Scotland. Therefore, the effects of Thatcherite economic policy on Scottish life expectancy - whatever they were - would not have occurred without the union.
These are facts. They are irrefutable.
It is a sociologically interesting phenomenon but I find it very hard to believe that politics has much to do with it."
What you have just outlined is what some of us know as the 'unionist trance'.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/24/climate-change-scientists-summer-met-office-boris-johnson_n_3488805.html?utm_hp_ref=uk
@Mike : No, but graph life expectancy versus trade union membership and you'd get an interesting although wholly misleading graph.
You could take the point further and argue for government on a local level. I'm sure the citizens of Dunblane, to take one example of a relatively well off town, would be better off if they didn't have to subsidise the less well off parts of Glasgow.
But they do.
And so do us English.
Dear God. Are you seriously now praying in aid the fact that the outcomes vary in different parts of the UK under the same government? That is exactly what we're charging the UK government with. Did you really not notice that?
But it has to be more than coincidence that the life expectany disparity accelerated from the 1980s, at exactly the time as heavy industry declined. Across the UK where htis happened life expectancy rates are comparatively low. But Scotland was especially dependent on this kind of industry. I'd say there is a reasonable case to make that if Westminster had used the oil money to ameliorate deindustrialisation, not just in Scotland but in the north of England, South Wales and elsewhere, this woul not be such an issue now. But Westminster made other choices. On that basis it seems perfectly reasonable to me to argue that Westminster can be directly blamed for lower life expectancy in Scotland. However, that is not the same as it being the Union's fault. If Westminster had made different choices the outcome would have been different. But the Union would still hae existed.
The level of debate is stunning.
The level of debate is stunning."
Don't be too hard on yourself, though. Carlotta must take some of the blame as well.
In the unlikely event you are interested in the data:
"........expectation of life at birth in Scotland has improved greatly over the last 25 years or so, increasing from 69.1 years for men and 75.3 years for women born around 1981 to 76.1 years and 80.6 years respectively for those born around 2010."
Chortle. Well, at least we now know that you don't actually care about your credibility.
You have no idea how an independent Scotland would have voted. I think it is far more likely that there would have been a traditional left/right split (the Scots have a long heritage of lucid right-wing thinkers) rather than the strange Labour dominance that we have.
The advocates of a non-Thatcherite policies failed to win a majority of the House of Commons.
" The UK average is 78.1 years for males and 82.1 years for females and the gap between UK and Scottish life expectancy is now wider than in 1997-1999, by 0.2 years for males and by 0.3 years for females."
I'm afraid we do have some idea, Charles, even if we don't have the full picture. An independent Scotland wouldn't have voted for Thacherism.
Cameron has undoubtedly played down his chumminess with various people from the press, but he's hardly less culpable in that than (say) Brown. Times have moved on, and I'm sure that the estates have moved apart.
That and no Saint Margaret makes them 0 for 2.
Let's say the Act of Union never occured. How do you know that a majority of Scots wouldn't be voting for the Adam Smith party?
So let me get this straight - you quoted those figures to prove how fantastic Thatcherism had been for Scotland, but now you're saying they're not quite good enough to prove how awful devolution has been for Scotland?
Wow.
Because he died in 1790? In any case, I think Adam Smith himself might have objected to his name being regarded south of the border as synonymous with Thatcherism.
Scotland traditionally voted against the Tories even in the 19th Century - the brief flirtation with the party in the early mid-to-20th Century can be largely put down to the Liberal Unionist split and sectarianism.
What's your data on Scottish life expectancy?
So you quoted life expectancy figures which you're now claiming AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH to refute my "smear" about the effect of Thatcherism on Scotland? This is compelling stuff, it can't be denied. With debating skills like that, perhaps your next challenge should be taking on the Doddmeister?
You do have an answer? Yes? No?
4 in the latest batch. Working out what to do with our High Streets is surely going to come up the political priority list. They can't be the cash cows of old but we still want them to provide useful employment as well as services that we want.
This is an ongoing car crash which will have a disproportionate impact on joe public's assessment of how the economy is going.
100% of your actions James seem to trace to London since a Scot can't be responsible for a Scots choices like eating/smoking/drinking/exercise.
How did a 250 year old Union suddenly start mis functioning in 1950?
Show us your data on the deleterious effects of Thatcherism on Scottish life expectancy - and explain the worsening of relative life expectancy since devolution...
Erm - I think that was my question. You failed to answer it. WHY do Scots have different 'peer, family and friend pressures etc' to the rest of the UK? You don't think it has anything to do with the centralised London rule under which the phenomenon started happening in the 1950s, so what is the explanation?
Genetic? Weather?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/06/tory-members-send-ministers-eu-reform-shopping-list/
Some very interesting data - and the challenge for renegotiation
The powers that the Tory members don't like fall into 3 categories:
1. Absolutely core to Europe: (free movement of people)
2. Too important to the French: agriculture
3. Politically challenging to focus solely on: employment
Leaves possible areas: legal/human rights (but not really EU), fishing and financial regulation.
Getting powers back on fishing, financial regulation and emplyment would be a great negotiation outcome - but doesn't really seem like it would be very satisfying for the BOOers.
And answer came there none! Oh dear! I don't think there is one, folks, but hope springs eternal, I suppose!
"Show us your data on the deleterious effects of Thatcherism on Scottish life expectancy"
You seem to be under the misapprehension that I am claiming to have 'personal' figures. The life expectancy figures are a matter of record. You seem to think they are both good and bad simultaneously. That intellectual confusion is something you'll have to resolve for yourself, I fear.
"The Tories are putting off Labour MPs from backing their Private Member’s Bill on an EU referendum with an overly partisan campaign, Coffee House has learned. John Cryer, who chairs Labour for a Referendum, tells me that he won’t be voting for the Bill because the Conservatives have turned it into a party political campaign to shore up their own position, rather than one that genuinely promotes a referendum."
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/06/exclusive-partisan-eu-referendum-campaign-dampens-labour-support/?utm_source=Coffee+House+Evening+Blend&utm_campaign=22d549a4d9-coffee_house_evening_blend_25_june_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_7aaa2a4d70-22d549a4d9-48937193
Net trust to see the country through the current economic situation:
Cameron: -16
Osborne: -33
Miliband: -34
Balls: -40
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/ITV_News_Index.pdf
Neither running a thread nor consulting members need Cameron to do anything
You're so far left-wing that people can't possibly influence their own lives it seems - the government is responsible for it ALL.
If there's a difference between Scotland and similar regions in England then the most likely responsibility is the Scots themselves not "Fatcher" or "Osbrowne" or whatever immature nonsense you want to pull.
Arthur Murphy, an Irishman, wrote about about a conversation he had with Samuel Johnson:
"Have you observed the difference between your own country impudence and Scottish impudence?" The answer being in the negative: "Then I will tell you," said Johnson. "The impudence of an Irishman is the impudence of a fly, that buzzes about you, and you put it away, but it returns again, and flutters and teazes you. The impudence of a Scotsman is the impudence of a leech, that fixes and sucks your blood."
You have the misfortune, Carlotta, of conversing with an impudent man of both Irish and Scotch descent.
Despite the question being relevant to the topic on hand. Yet here you are, demanding answers from others.
Or was it that you did not have an answer that would not make you look like a fool?
There you are Seth.
Good to see not every right winger on PB has temporarily flounced off in the huff.
How do you think this affects your predictions over Lansley becoming PM?
The Labour takeover by Unite hits a snag in Falkirk.
I presume that's the sort of thing he's thinking of.
That sort of thing can't work in a monetary union (such aspirations are why we don't have it). Monetary union implies fiscal union though (as we're finding out).
You still haven't grasped what Devolution is have you dear? Never mind. Suffice to say that nobody really expects tea party tories to understand why limited Devolution is completely different to full self governance or why the scottish public is so in favour of yet more Devolution not less.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-23056173
1. You seem to be having a referendum on independence rather than 'more devolution'.
2. There is no such thing as a 'tea party Tory'
3. When does devolution become independence?
1. Since the No campaign opposed more devolution then their message of 'Vote No get Nothing' might not be too wise given the scottish public's obvious desire for more devoution.
2. Is there such a thing as a "swivel-eyed loon"? Perhaps Cammie would know?
3. Devolution is a process. Labour still don't understand that nor do many tories.
Scottish Social Attitudes Survey JUNE 2013
Independence: 35%
Devo max 32%
Status quo: 24%
No Scottish Parliament: 6%
I no more need to make the case to the scottish public for more Devolution powers than I do for the self-evident fact that limited Devolution will always be inferior to and cannot possibly have the same effect on people's lives as more Devolution and indeed full self-governance.
Yep. He's painted himself into something of a corner, but I think you will agree that something along the lines I suggest would be a logical progression. Politics being what it is, and politicians being quite unimaginative I don't think we'll get such a thing, but Cameron simply has to find something 'sexy' to sell his renegotiated Europe.
I'm reasonably sure we'll have a referendum sometime or other in the next ten years on Europe. I'd quite like there to be a well thought out agenda on both sides.
He will rerun this type of party political to persuade the ever gullible tory eurosceptics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ2n7oMcSi0
It might even work. I won't work on the kippers but the EU elections will likely be the last time Cammie ever wants to go near the subject lest his backbenchers run about like headless chickens over the EU during the election campaign.
How does that work? We can, in one sense, at the moment by repealing the 1972 Act. In any other sense the very idea of a common market (social powers of the EU even aside) wouldn't make much sense: standardisation of weights, measures, railways, and all sorts of other standards - except where the UK opts out?
The Yes campaign need to persuade the Devo Max/more powers side that even more powers than Devo Max is the best option while the No campaign need to persuade the Devo Max/more powers side that not just independence but Devo Max and more powers are not required and the best option. The unionist parties made their choice when they all vehemently opposed Devo Max.
Apologies for my failure to count.
Your post beyond that makes no sense.
(On a minor point: Your asserted existence of "swivel eyed loons" doesn't imply that there are "tea party torys".)
However more importantly there simply must be a dividing line between independence and devolution - no matter how blurry. As you have more devolution then you must get closer to independence. So perhaps you should state which things you want to remain common to us all?
There is no way he could simply promise a referendum and say I will support IN or OUT as a matter of principle. His party and grassroots would go berserk. The entire point is to maintain the illusion of euroscepticism to a party and grassroots which is far from happy with the idea of the tory party and the tory leadership supporting and campaigning to stay IN.
If he leans to much on one side or the other he will expose a party that is quite clearly split on staying IN or OUT. So he will remain reticent.