Nigel Farage is pointing out that 192,000 Romanians and Bulgarians registered for National Insurance numbers in last year, yet ONS is claiming only 53,000 came here.
What explanations are there for this?
ONS being part of the civil service, the difference will be in the definition of the word "year" (year to date, calendar year etc.) and possibly the words "Romanians" and "Bulgarians" (such as excluding people of that ethnic group which are coming from another country.
Michael Meacher was also from the left (and I believe was the only member of the Blair Government with governmental experience albeit as a junior minister). He has been in parliament for 45 years now, and was a reasonably competent minister. A good candidate for Shadow Chancellor?
As to the election: what is done is done. The MPs will have to get behind JC and Watson, objecting now to the rules of the race is too late.
Agreed - or shadow Foreign Secretary. If we defy the .35 of Betfair punters who still think JC will lose, I also think it's obvious that Burnham will get a senior slot, as he's the embodiment of the concept of party unity and despite scepticism here the best-liked in the general public. McDonnell as JC's campaign manager will get one too - he's another left-winger who presents his ideas reasonably, and could see him in a job like Health (Southam predicted he'd be Shadow Chancellor, which I doubt). But JC should have another heavyweight centrist appointment in a senior slot - one of the Select Committee chairs?
I see the Tories are continuing to import more voters.
I think it would be more accurate to say we are failing to enact our policies because our hands are bound by the European Union. We really need to get a grip on this. Even a bumbling UKIP will be able to have a field day if we don't get our house in order. On the top concern of British voters, we're going backwards. And at quite a scale too: net migration is up almost 50% on last year.
If Labour was importing voters when immigration was high under Blair and Brown, then surely the Tories are too. Around half of our new intake does not come from the EU.
I wonder how many of the current intake are family members joining those voters that Labour imported.
Clearly, the Tories do not have a problem with such imports if that is what is happening.
Whichever way you spin it, this is now a Tory responsibility. Labour has not had any control over immigration policy for over five years.
What, in fact, we may all be finding out is that the issue of immigration is actually a lot more complicated and nuanced than we may previously have thought when we threw around accusations of voter importation and hatred of the white working class.
I agree that it is now the Conservatives' responsibility, but it is clear that migration begets migration. For example, once there is an established Somali population in the UK, more Somalis will choose to come here rather than a different EU country, because that's where the Somali enclaves are. That's why a third to a fifth of the Somali population of the Netherlands came here when they got Dutch passports. It's clear non-EU immigration, which is the bit we have control over, went up under Labour and down under the Conservatives.
For all the talk of complications and nuance, there is a simple fact at the heart of all this: we can not control our borders under current EU rules. They must change or we must leave. Frank Field is saying as much this morning.
Nigel Farage is pointing out that 192,000 Romanians and Bulgarians registered for National Insurance numbers in last year, yet ONS is claiming only 53,000 came here.
What explanations are there for this?
That 139,000 missed the ferry due to traffic jams?
I see the Tories are continuing to import more voters.
Of course Labour started the voter importation programme by encouraging certain ethnic groups to come here and vote for them. Unfortunately for Labour, its wars put off many of the new voters.
And the Tories are clearly carrying it on - encouraged, no doubt, by the increase in support the party is receiving from ethnic minorities.
Problem is, for Cons (anti-)immigration is home territory. To fail on restricting numbers might get the Kippers & Mail in a froth but for Cons it is a win-win situation.
Kippers & Mail in a froth = expected; and then if/when the Graun & Mirror get in a froth (have they?) the Cons sit back and behave like Cons...imposing restrictions (or arguing hard at EU renegotiations) for less immigration with a backstop against "nasty" claims of "but you all wanted us to do this."
Nigel Farage is pointing out that 192,000 Romanians and Bulgarians registered for National Insurance numbers in last year, yet ONS is claiming only 53,000 came here.
What explanations are there for this?
ONS being part of the civil service, the difference will be in the definition of the word "year" (year to date, calendar year etc.) and possibly the words "Romanians" and "Bulgarians" (such as excluding people of that ethnic group which are coming from another country.
Many come as seasonal workers - just as people go and work in Australia for a year or two.
As for Gaelic, I remember reading this on Quora recently while researching something else:
"1) Scottish Gaelic is a Celtic language brought to northern Britain from Ireland c. 1500 years ago. It replaced the indigenous speech of the region, and continued in to be spoken in the highlands after Scots replaced it in the lowlands. 2) Scots is a dialect of English that evolved out the dialect of northern England, and came to dominate lowland Scotland. 3) Scottish English is the variant of Modern English spoken in Scotland, mostly replacing the above."
So Gaelic is not even originally indigenous Scottish, or the Kilt, Haggis, Whisky or even golf. We do "absorb" things into our culture and try and, mostly successfully, make them better. And if no one can remember the originals, even more better ;^)
Just turned Radio Scotland back on. Had to turn off during an interview with oor Meenister o'Cultchurrr Hyslop wittering on about oor FM's new idea for Radio SNP and SNP .TV, to be run as part of a federal system alongside the national BBC. Must admit she had learnt her script well, even as most listeners were realising she hadn't a clue what she was talking about.
Must be a big story about to break that the SNP don't want to talk about. Please, MalcolmG, can you tell us from deepest, darkest Berwick? Or must we wait to hear from the Phoney Rev. Whinging Frae Bath?
Do you even have one eye ocheye. Insults are not required , I am an Ayrshire lad born and bred , where did darkest berwick come from. Fiona was extremely eloquent on the topic and came across well as always, not hard against BBC Scotland mind you.
Mark Hilton, immigration policy director at London First, said: “The business community wants the government to tone down its anti-migration rhetoric. Migration is an important part of being in a thriving, modern economy.
“As we’ve seen in recent days, the global economy remains fragile, so now is not the time to pull up the drawbridge to the type of global talent that will help drive our economic growth.
“Immigrants are job creators, allowing British businesses to expand into new markets, by bringing specialist skills. So far from taking our jobs, they actually create more of them.”
That must be why Bradford and Tower Hamlets are at the cutting edge of scientific and technological innovation, and are envied globally for their skilled workforce and their pioneering spirit of social liberalism. Rumour has it that several American technology giants are in fact thinking of relocating there!
Can anyone point me to a list of violent / property crimes carried out by suffragettes?
Thinking mainly of arson etc.
eg is there any truth in claims of churches being burnt down?
It is suggested that they were responsible for the arson at Wargrave Church in Reading, although as far as I know the case was never proven one way or another. Crimes included putting burning rags into post boxes to set the mail on fire, and sending grass seed to an MP known to have a very bad grass allergy (sorry, can't remember his name). There was also all that business with the horse at the 1912/13 (not sure which) Derby. They also attempted to bomb the Bank of England and Oxsted railway station, but I don't think either bomb went off.
EDIT - in terms of a list, I think this would be your best bet:
Thank you. Hadn't come across that one before. As you say, very nasty. (Very timely as well, I'm just redoing my SoWs including the one on suffragettes - can bring that one in!).
Better and better Mr Crosby - a source comparison task is coming on here, since I can get access to the original Times report too!
Thank you very much, it is appreciated. As you say, a very stupid and reckless act: furthermore, not perhaps quite calculated to persuade the chauvinists that women were to be trusted with the democratic process...
Although I notice from the report that the Liberal candidate was one Mr S Hughes.
Just how many times has Simon Hughes run for that seat!
Nigel Farage is pointing out that 192,000 Romanians and Bulgarians registered for National Insurance numbers in last year, yet ONS is claiming only 53,000 came here.
What explanations are there for this?
ONS being part of the civil service, the difference will be in the definition of the word "year" (year to date, calendar year etc.) and possibly the words "Romanians" and "Bulgarians" (such as excluding people of that ethnic group which are coming from another country.
Many come as seasonal workers - just as people go and work in Australia for a year or two.
I hear the sound of straws being grasped. So what. That still doesn't explain how we manage to get almost four times as many people registering for national insurance as entering the country.
Michael Meacher was also from the left (and I believe was the only member of the Blair Government with governmental experience albeit as a junior minister). He has been in parliament for 45 years now, and was a reasonably competent minister. A good candidate for Shadow Chancellor?
As to the election: what is done is done. The MPs will have to get behind JC and Watson, objecting now to the rules of the race is too late.
Agreed - or shadow Foreign Secretary. If we defy the .35 of Betfair punters who still think JC will lose, I also think it's obvious that Burnham will get a senior slot, as he's the embodiment of the concept of party unity and despite scepticism here the best-liked in the general public. McDonnell as JC's campaign manager will get one too - he's another left-winger who presents his ideas reasonably, and could see him in a job like Health (Southam predicted he'd be Shadow Chancellor, which I doubt). But JC should have another heavyweight centrist appointment in a senior slot - one of the Select Committee chairs?
Random thought, but would he recall Margaret Hodge? They've worked together for years, and despite everything (age, scandals, letter writing etc.) she still remains a pretty formidable figure. It's easier to imagine her landing punches on Osborne than pretty much any other plausible candidate.
It would be a very courageous move, in the Yes Minister sense - but then so is electing Corbyn leader in the first place. If you wish to screw up, might as well go the whole hog.
Can anyone point me to a list of violent / property crimes carried out by suffragettes?
Thinking mainly of arson etc.
eg is there any truth in claims of churches being burnt down?
It is suggested that they were responsible for the arson at Wargrave Church in Reading, although as far as I know the case was never proven one way or another. Crimes included putting burning rags into post boxes to set the mail on fire, and sending grass seed to an MP known to have a very bad grass allergy (sorry, can't remember his name). There was also all that business with the horse at the 1912/13 (not sure which) Derby. They also attempted to bomb the Bank of England and Oxsted railway station, but I don't think either bomb went off.
EDIT - in terms of a list, I think this would be your best bet:
Thank you. Hadn't come across that one before. As you say, very nasty. (Very timely as well, I'm just redoing my SoWs including the one on suffragettes - can bring that one in!).
Better and better Mr Crosby - a source comparison task is coming on here, since I can get access to the original Times report too!
Thank you very much, it is appreciated. As you say, a very stupid and reckless act: furthermore, not perhaps quite calculated to persuade the chauvinists that women were to be trusted with the democratic process...
Although I notice from the report that the Liberal candidate was one Mr S Hughes.
Just how many times has Simon Hughes run for that seat!
Michael Meacher was also from the left (and I believe was the only member of the Blair Government with governmental experience albeit as a junior minister). He has been in parliament for 45 years now, and was a reasonably competent minister. A good candidate for Shadow Chancellor?
As to the election: what is done is done. The MPs will have to get behind JC and Watson, objecting now to the rules of the race is too late.
Agreed - or shadow Foreign Secretary. If we defy the .35 of Betfair punters who still think JC will lose, I also think it's obvious that Burnham will get a senior slot, as he's the embodiment of the concept of party unity and despite scepticism here the best-liked in the general public. McDonnell as JC's campaign manager will get one too - he's another left-winger who presents his ideas reasonably, and could see him in a job like Health (Southam predicted he'd be Shadow Chancellor, which I doubt). But JC should have another heavyweight centrist appointment in a senior slot - one of the Select Committee chairs?
I thought MPs voted for their own Select Committee chairs?
You're not suggesting that they do as the whips tell them, I hope.
Aberdeen (if the oil price stays low, the SNP will be wiped out there next year).
Even mony, the SNP aren't getting 'wiped out' in Aberdeen...
The amount of spoofers on here nowadays is incredible. They are funny though , pretendy Scots who don't know the first thing about anything going on up here.
Aberdeen (if the oil price stays low, the SNP will be wiped out there next year).
Even mony, the SNP aren't getting 'wiped out' in Aberdeen...
The amount of spoofers on here nowadays is incredible. They are funny though , pretendy Scots who don't know the first thing about anything going on up here.
Michael Meacher was also from the left (and I believe was the only member of the Blair Government with governmental experience albeit as a junior minister). He has been in parliament for 45 years now, and was a reasonably competent minister. A good candidate for Shadow Chancellor?
As to the election: what is done is done. The MPs will have to get behind JC and Watson, objecting now to the rules of the race is too late.
Agreed - or shadow Foreign Secretary. If we defy the .35 of Betfair punters who still think JC will lose, I also think it's obvious that Burnham will get a senior slot, as he's the embodiment of the concept of party unity and despite scepticism here the best-liked in the general public. McDonnell as JC's campaign manager will get one too - he's another left-winger who presents his ideas reasonably, and could see him in a job like Health (Southam predicted he'd be Shadow Chancellor, which I doubt). But JC should have another heavyweight centrist appointment in a senior slot - one of the Select Committee chairs?
I thought MPs voted for their own Select Committee chairs?
You're not suggesting that they do as the whips tell them, I hope.
I think he meant, promote a select committee chair to the SC on the basis there are some 'heavyweights' among them. THat's what I thought it meant, anyway.
Must be a big story about to break that the SNP don't want to talk about. Please, MalcolmG, can you tell us from deepest, darkest Berwick? Or must we wait to hear from the Phoney Rev. Whinging Frae Bath?
JOHN Swinney has become the most senior minister to be drawn into the cronyism row over T in the Park, after it emerged he met the organisers at the request of a former SNP aide.
The deputy first minister and finance secretary met DF Concerts' chief executive in his constituency office at the behest of a former SNP government adviser.
Jennifer Dempsie, the former adviser to Alex Salmond who was working for DF Concerts as a short-term project manager, also attended the meeting In Blairgowrie on March 27.
Hmm! Yes, moving TitP was always a bit dodgy, and is getting dodgier by the day. Can't say Ms. Dempsie is not well connected in the SNP though, isn't she the 'Bidie In of a certain Angus Robertson, Leader of the SNP at Westminster?
Apart from questions on Policing in Kirkcaldy (And Sir Stephen House), A&E waiting times increasing, changing the Council Tax, Roads and crumbling infrastructures, Prestwick airport (Mama Sturgeons constituency), Aberdeen (if the oil price stays low, the SNP will be wiped out there next year). Most of these are known about, but for MalcolmG and others to be let loose so early in the day normally indicates that there is volcano about to explode.
So you really are as stupid as you post , Scott's brother by the look of it. Certainly cretinous enough for it. Unliek you JSA boys , we wrkers need to get on early and can only be around sporadically. To save you the bother of looking it up , work = gainfully employed and not living off others.
Michael Meacher was also from the left (and I believe was the only member of the Blair Government with governmental experience albeit as a junior minister). He has been in parliament for 45 years now, and was a reasonably competent minister. A good candidate for Shadow Chancellor?
As to the election: what is done is done. The MPs will have to get behind JC and Watson, objecting now to the rules of the race is too late.
Agreed - or shadow Foreign Secretary. If we defy the .35 of Betfair punters who still think JC will lose, I also think it's obvious that Burnham will get a senior slot, as he's the embodiment of the concept of party unity and despite scepticism here the best-liked in the general public. McDonnell as JC's campaign manager will get one too - he's another left-winger who presents his ideas reasonably, and could see him in a job like Health (Southam predicted he'd be Shadow Chancellor, which I doubt). But JC should have another heavyweight centrist appointment in a senior slot - one of the Select Committee chairs?
Do you see any bargains in Shadsy's Shadow Chancellor market?
Nigel Farage is pointing out that 192,000 Romanians and Bulgarians registered for National Insurance numbers in last year, yet ONS is claiming only 53,000 came here.
What explanations are there for this?
ONS being part of the civil service, the difference will be in the definition of the word "year" (year to date, calendar year etc.) and possibly the words "Romanians" and "Bulgarians" (such as excluding people of that ethnic group which are coming from another country.
Many come as seasonal workers - just as people go and work in Australia for a year or two.
I hear the sound of straws being grasped. So what. That still doesn't explain how we manage to get almost four times as many people registering for national insurance as entering the country.
Of course it does - if someone comes and works for three months and then leaves is he an immigrant or on holiday? If he or she works then they would register for national insurance.
I very much doubt Malcolm G even lives in Scotland, sounds like an ex pat with memories of old, probably lost his scots accent and lives in Manchester. He certainly hasn't lost the Scottish temperament.
You are as thick as ever root vegetable. I know dullards like you could not pick out Scotland on a Map, but even you should know by now I am in Scotland.
Mr. Royale, more than that, Germany's letting in everyone and wants binding EU agreements on taking certain numbers.
I still think In will win comfortably.
Because Out will be led by Farage, and people will get confused by In (deliberately) and default to the status quo.
But I do think it could now be close, like the Scottish referendum result, if played correctly, which would be a very pyrrhic victory for In, and wouldn't settle the issue.
It might even force an extra concession. But what is really needed is sovereign borders. FoM was designed for a very small EU of western countries in the 60s to 80s. It was never intended, nor should it be, a conduit for mass immigration.
Perhaps a fudge could be found where the 'principle' is maintained, but there are net immigration thresholds above which EU member states would have a right of suspension.
Unless the absolute right of freedom of movement dies we will never have control of our borders. But the EU won't negotiate on that.
So we must leave.
Dan Hannan notes that both Guy Verhofstadt and Jacque Delors have suggested associate membership for the UK, where we can opt out of a lot more but we lose voting rights. That sounds very attractive right now.
Nigel Farage is pointing out that 192,000 Romanians and Bulgarians registered for National Insurance numbers in last year, yet ONS is claiming only 53,000 came here.
What explanations are there for this?
ONS being part of the civil service, the difference will be in the definition of the word "year" (year to date, calendar year etc.) and possibly the words "Romanians" and "Bulgarians" (such as excluding people of that ethnic group which are coming from another country.
Many come as seasonal workers - just as people go and work in Australia for a year or two.
I hear the sound of straws being grasped. So what. That still doesn't explain how we manage to get almost four times as many people registering for national insurance as entering the country.
Of course it does - if someone comes and works for three months and then leaves is he an immigrant or on holiday? If he or she works then they would register for national insurance.
Indeed. So you would expect the number of NI applications to be small than the number of visitors, since it wouldn't include those that just came for a vacation.
Mark Hilton, immigration policy director at London First, said: “The business community wants the government to tone down its anti-migration rhetoric. Migration is an important part of being in a thriving, modern economy.
“As we’ve seen in recent days, the global economy remains fragile, so now is not the time to pull up the drawbridge to the type of global talent that will help drive our economic growth.
“Immigrants are job creators, allowing British businesses to expand into new markets, by bringing specialist skills. So far from taking our jobs, they actually create more of them.”
That must be why Bradford and Tower Hamlets are at the cutting edge of scientific and technological innovation, and are envied globally for their skilled workforce and their pioneering spirit of social liberalism. Rumour has it that several American technology giants are in fact thinking of relocating there!
To be fair, Tech Circle isn't that far from Tower Hamlets!
Pulpstar said: » show previous quotes Even mony, the SNP aren't getting 'wiped out' in Aberdeen...
The Party Machine says they are popular, others are not so sure. Who to believe?
So glad you couldn't find anything else to dispute in the post though. PS, what is "mony"? The new Scottish currency or a new lady member in the House of Lords, in which case I wouldn't mind layi.. Er! well!
Nigel Farage is pointing out that 192,000 Romanians and Bulgarians registered for National Insurance numbers in last year, yet ONS is claiming only 53,000 came here.
What explanations are there for this?
ONS being part of the civil service, the difference will be in the definition of the word "year" (year to date, calendar year etc.) and possibly the words "Romanians" and "Bulgarians" (such as excluding people of that ethnic group which are coming from another country.
Many come as seasonal workers - just as people go and work in Australia for a year or two.
I hear the sound of straws being grasped. So what. That still doesn't explain how we manage to get almost four times as many people registering for national insurance as entering the country.
From the ONS website:
"National Insurance number (NINo) allocations to overseas nationals
Figure 9 shows the rolling 12 month totals for NINo registrations to overseas nationals, split by EU and non-EU nationals. In YE June 2015, 917,000 overseas nationals registered for a NINo of which three-quarters were from within the EU.
It should be noted that these figures also include short-term migrants and are not a direct measure of when a person migrated to the UK, as those registering may have arrived to live in the UK weeks, months or years before registering – and may have subsequently returned abroad.
Although figures do accurately reflect the number of NINos registered over time, a change to the process of recording NINos in 2014, means that the volume of NINo registrations was lower in YE June 2014 and then higher in the latest year to YE June 2015 than would otherwise be the case. Caution should therefore be taken when making comparisons of NINo registrations between these periods."
My understanding is that migrants only count when they are resident for a year, so someone working seasonally or even as a Locum Doctor for a few months, would not show up in the migrant numbers but would need an NI number.
The difference in numbers is not that hard to reconcile.
As for Gaelic, I remember reading this on Quora recently while researching something else:
"1) Scottish Gaelic is a Celtic language brought to northern Britain from Ireland c. 1500 years ago. It replaced the indigenous speech of the region, and continued in to be spoken in the highlands after Scots replaced it in the lowlands. 2) Scots is a dialect of English that evolved out the dialect of northern England, and came to dominate lowland Scotland. 3) Scottish English is the variant of Modern English spoken in Scotland, mostly replacing the above."
So Gaelic is not even originally indigenous Scottish, or the Kilt, Haggis, Whisky or even golf. We do "absorb" things into our culture and try and, mostly successfully, make them better. And if no one can remember the originals, even more better ;^)
I hear the sound of straws being grasped. So what. That still doesn't explain how we manage to get almost four times as many people registering for national insurance as entering the country.
Is the ONS figure a net figure? If so, that could explain the difference, every new person who comes here to work gets an NI number but they don't lose it when they go home.
Pulpstar said: » show previous quotes Even mony, the SNP aren't getting 'wiped out' in Aberdeen...
The Party Machine says they are popular, others are not so sure. Who to believe?
So glad you couldn't find anything else to dispute in the post though. PS, what is "mony"? The new Scottish currency or a new lady member in the House of Lords, in which case I wouldn't mind layi.. Er! well!
My point is that the SNP are going to do very well for some time to come, come what may in Scotland
As for Gaelic, I remember reading this on Quora recently while researching something else:
"1) Scottish Gaelic is a Celtic language brought to northern Britain from Ireland c. 1500 years ago. It replaced the indigenous speech of the region, and continued in to be spoken in the highlands after Scots replaced it in the lowlands. 2) Scots is a dialect of English that evolved out the dialect of northern England, and came to dominate lowland Scotland. 3) Scottish English is the variant of Modern English spoken in Scotland, mostly replacing the above."
So Gaelic is not even originally indigenous Scottish, or the Kilt, Haggis, Whisky or even golf. We do "absorb" things into our culture and try and, mostly successfully, make them better. And if no one can remember the originals, even more better ;^)
I hear the sound of straws being grasped. So what. That still doesn't explain how we manage to get almost four times as many people registering for national insurance as entering the country.
Is the ONS figure a net figure? If so, that could explain the difference, every new person who comes here to work gets an NI number but they don't lose it when they go home.
I hear the sound of straws being grasped. So what. That still doesn't explain how we manage to get almost four times as many people registering for national insurance as entering the country.
Is the ONS figure a net figure? If so, that could explain the difference, every new person who comes here to work gets an NI number but they don't lose it when they go home.
That would only work if these people were going home within the year. I can't see three quarters of them doing that.
Michael Meacher was also from the left (and I believe was the only member of the Blair Government with governmental experience albeit as a junior minister). He has been in parliament for 45 years now, and was a reasonably competent minister. A good candidate for Shadow Chancellor?
As to the election: what is done is done. The MPs will have to get behind JC and Watson, objecting now to the rules of the race is too late.
Agreed - or shadow Foreign Secretary. If we defy the .35 of Betfair punters who still think JC will lose, I also think it's obvious that Burnham will get a senior slot, as he's the embodiment of the concept of party unity and despite scepticism here the best-liked in the general public. McDonnell as JC's campaign manager will get one too - he's another left-winger who presents his ideas reasonably, and could see him in a job like Health (Southam predicted he'd be Shadow Chancellor, which I doubt). But JC should have another heavyweight centrist appointment in a senior slot - one of the Select Committee chairs?
Random thought, but would he recall Margaret Hodge? They've worked together for years, and despite everything (age, scandals, letter writing etc.) she still remains a pretty formidable figure. It's easier to imagine her landing punches on Osborne than pretty much any other plausible candidate.
It would be a very courageous move, in the Yes Minister sense - but then so is electing Corbyn leader in the first place. If you wish to screw up, might as well go the whole hog.
Hodge? Meacher? McDonnell? Corbyn? It sounds like the Shadow Cabinet could end up with an average age third only to the Soviet politburo and the 2016 US presidential candidates.
My understanding is that migrants only count when they are resident for a year, so someone working seasonally or even as a Locum Doctor for a few months, would not show up in the migrant numbers but would need an NI number.
The difference in numbers is not that hard to reconcile.
I suspect its six months, but I am open to evidence suggesting otherwise, certainly for people outside the EU, Immigration takes the view that under six months is a visit, and over six months is migration. Having been involved with UKVI at several points over the last year I am quite up-to-date on their policies from outside the EU
As for Gaelic, I remember reading this on Quora recently while researching something else:
"1) Scottish Gaelic is a Celtic language brought to northern Britain from Ireland c. 1500 years ago. It replaced the indigenous speech of the region, and continued in to be spoken in the highlands after Scots replaced it in the lowlands. 2) Scots is a dialect of English that evolved out the dialect of northern England, and came to dominate lowland Scotland. 3) Scottish English is the variant of Modern English spoken in Scotland, mostly replacing the above."
So Gaelic is not even originally indigenous Scottish, or the Kilt, Haggis, Whisky or even golf. We do "absorb" things into our culture and try and, mostly successfully, make them better. And if no one can remember the originals, even more better ;^)
Researching what a laugh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Malcolm drives a baggage trolley at Prestwick Airport, hence the vast amount of time he has free to loot lost suitcases and whinge here.
(The minimum age was sometimes ignored until the nineteenth century - Fox was elected an MP at 19, for example.)
So he would definitely be the oldest active politician alive today, with the possible exception of some of the dinosaurs still roaming the Labour party 65 million years after their official decease.
Michael Meacher was also from the left (and I believe was the only member of the Blair Government with governmental experience albeit as a junior minister). He has been in parliament for 45 years now, and was a reasonably competent minister. A good candidate for Shadow Chancellor?
As to the election: what is done is done. The MPs will have to get behind JC and Watson, objecting now to the rules of the race is too late.
Agreed - or shadow Foreign Secretary. If we defy the .35 of Betfair punters who still think JC will lose, I also think it's obvious that Burnham will get a senior slot, as he's the embodiment of the concept of party unity and despite scepticism here the best-liked in the general public. McDonnell as JC's campaign manager will get one too - he's another left-winger who presents his ideas reasonably, and could see him in a job like Health (Southam predicted he'd be Shadow Chancellor, which I doubt). But JC should have another heavyweight centrist appointment in a senior slot - one of the Select Committee chairs?
Random thought, but would he recall Margaret Hodge? They've worked together for years, and despite everything (age, scandals, letter writing etc.) she still remains a pretty formidable figure. It's easier to imagine her landing punches on Osborne than pretty much any other plausible candidate.
It would be a very courageous move, in the Yes Minister sense - but then so is electing Corbyn leader in the first place. If you wish to screw up, might as well go the whole hog.
Hodge? Meacher? McDonnell? Corbyn? It sounds like the Shadow Cabinet could end up with an average age third only to the Soviet politburo and the 2016 US presidential candidates.
Good news for us younger ones though Mr Herdson, it gives us more time to get to the top if we wish!
Who was it said that the worst part of growing old was that it more and more difficult to find somebody who didn't amount to much when he was your age?
Everyone under 65 now has the example of Jeremy Corbyn. Man deserves to win for that alone.
So Gaelic is not even originally indigenous Scottish
Yet the SNP government persists in spending money on it/teaching it in areas where it has no roots.....
1500 years is pretty indigenous and would just about predate the introduction of English/Scots. But there is a theory that Scots Gaelic developed independently in Dalriada which was a kingdom on both sides of the Irish dear, as there is little evidence of an invasion.
Unless the absolute right of freedom of movement dies we will never have control of our borders. But the EU won't negotiate on that.
So we must leave.
Dan Hannan notes that both Guy Verhofstadt and Jacque Delors have suggested associate membership for the UK, where we can opt out of a lot more but we lose voting rights. That sounds very attractive right now.
But will that still require FoM? The EEC definitely does and EFTA largely does too.
Unless the absolute right of freedom of movement dies we will never have control of our borders. But the EU won't negotiate on that.
So we must leave.
Dan Hannan notes that both Guy Verhofstadt and Jacque Delors have suggested associate membership for the UK, where we can opt out of a lot more but we lose voting rights. That sounds very attractive right now.
But will that still require FoM? The EEC definitely does and EFTA largely does too.
Don't think details have been discussed. EFTA would need people to have a job and pay for a NHS card, so that would limit a chunk of it. Still not enough though, I admit...
Pulpstar said: » show previous quotes Even mony, the SNP aren't getting 'wiped out' in Aberdeen...
The Party Machine says they are popular, others are not so sure. Who to believe?
So glad you couldn't find anything else to dispute in the post though. PS, what is "mony"? The new Scottish currency or a new lady member in the House of Lords, in which case I wouldn't mind layi.. Er! well!
I think focusing on the price of oil today is not that relevant to SNPers views on independence - its the Unionist parties, political commentators and a few folks on this site who seem completely obsessed with the oil price. Most Scots are just glad that fuel is cheaper and very few lose any sleep about the oil price.
Aberdeen is clearly the city where folks are much more aware of the oil industry, however even here production levels matter more than price, Scottish oil production is at a 15 year high and due to tax incentives, belatedly introduced in the budget, oil companies are continuing to invest. The Coalition's 3 month delay in introducing the tax incentives in a naïve attempt to damage the SNP, cost thousands of jobs.
From the SNP perspective oil taxes over the last 35 years constituted a £300 billion transfer of wealth to London and the South East, with Scotland receiving little direct benefit from these revenues. Having lived and worked in London for most of the last 30 years I'm happy to admit that I benefited particularly in the 1980s and 1990s as these revenues were used to re-gentrify London. In their recent Northern Powerhouse announcements both Cameron and Osbo have admitted that for to long investment has been focused on London and the South East.
In terms of what the SNP person on the street believes. I think they view Scotland as having a diverse economy and probably do buy the SNP line that all revenues are a bonus. Scott and the likes of Kevin Hauge can huff and puff all they like about the oil price - they're wasting their time shouting in an echo chamber.
Unless the absolute right of freedom of movement dies we will never have control of our borders. But the EU won't negotiate on that.
So we must leave.
Dan Hannan notes that both Guy Verhofstadt and Jacque Delors have suggested associate membership for the UK, where we can opt out of a lot more but we lose voting rights. That sounds very attractive right now.
But will that still require FoM? The EEC definitely does and EFTA largely does too.
Don't think details have been discussed. EFTA would need people to have a job and pay for a NHS card, so that would limit a chunk of it. Still not enough though, I admit...
FoM has now moved so far from it's original intent - at a time where international migration was v.limited and bureaucratic easement was needed for skilled workers and professionals to make the single market slick - that it's simply no longer credible as a die-in-the-ditch principle.
Sooner or later practical politics will catch up with the idealised theory as enshrined into law by the European elites.
Unless the absolute right of freedom of movement dies we will never have control of our borders. But the EU won't negotiate on that.
So we must leave.
Dan Hannan notes that both Guy Verhofstadt and Jacque Delors have suggested associate membership for the UK, where we can opt out of a lot more but we lose voting rights. That sounds very attractive right now.
But will that still require FoM? The EEC definitely does and EFTA largely does too.
Precisely. This is the core question for the Out side to take seriously. The trouble is that any deal which doesn't include freedom of movement is likely to have a significant negative economic effect. Without FoM, I don't think there's any realistic prospect of full access to the single market (including services, which of course is a vital consideration for the UK but of much less interest to our EU friends, in fact they'd probably prefer it if they could shut our financial and business services companies out of the Eurozone).
Saying we'll leave but then join the EEA or some similar deal is just the worst of both worlds IMO, and certainly would be a fraudulent prospectus if the Out side are going to use immigration as an argument.
Sooner or later practical politics will catch up with the idealised theory as enshrined into law by the European elites.
The European elite is still dreaming of a United States of Europe, which would of course not have any borders, and I suspect will die in a ditch to prevent rolling back anything that might make the USoE a more distant prospect, especially since they don't have the inconvenience of having to be elected by anyone. The whole idea of the USoE is in practical terms of course, a farce, since the Germans ran a mile at the idea of a transfer union when confronted with a minnow like Greece.
Unless the absolute right of freedom of movement dies we will never have control of our borders. But the EU won't negotiate on that.
So we must leave.
Dan Hannan notes that both Guy Verhofstadt and Jacque Delors have suggested associate membership for the UK, where we can opt out of a lot more but we lose voting rights. That sounds very attractive right now.
But will that still require FoM? The EEC definitely does and EFTA largely does too.
Precisely. This is the core question for the Out side to take seriously.
Where as our IN friends have the minor detail of explaining 630,000 immigrants and the Calais fiasco to a seethingly angry public, good luck with that.
From the SNP perspective oil taxes over the last 35 years constituted a £300 billion transfer of wealth to London and the South East
Looking back at 80s GERS figures that certainly looks to have been the case, but going forward the SNP needs to revise it's sums on the matter somewhat.
Unless the absolute right of freedom of movement dies we will never have control of our borders. But the EU won't negotiate on that.
So we must leave.
Dan Hannan notes that both Guy Verhofstadt and Jacque Delors have suggested associate membership for the UK, where we can opt out of a lot more but we lose voting rights. That sounds very attractive right now.
But will that still require FoM? The EEC definitely does and EFTA largely does too.
Precisely. This is the core question for the Out side to take seriously. The trouble is that any deal which doesn't include freedom of movement is likely to have a significant negative economic effect. Without FoM, I don't think there's any realistic prospect of full access to the single market (including services, which of course is a vital consideration for the UK but of much less interest to our EU friends, in fact they'd probably prefer it if they could shut our financial and business services companies out of the Eurozone).
Saying we'll leave but then join the EEA or some similar deal is just the worst of both worlds IMO, and certainly would be a fraudulent prospectus if the Out side are going to use immigration as an argument.
The EU-South Korea trade deal includes free trade in services, including elimination of non-tariff barriers, so presumably we could get something like that. That seems like the sort of thing the Out camp should unite around.
Sooner or later practical politics will catch up with the idealised theory as enshrined into law by the European elites.
The European elite is still dreaming of a United States of Europe, which would of course not have any borders, and I suspect will die in a ditch to prevent rolling back anything that might make the USoE a more distant prospect, especially since they don't have the inconvenience of having to be elected by anyone. The whole idea of the USoE is in practical terms of course, a farce, since the Germans ran a mile at the idea of a transfer union when confronted with a minnow like Greece.
When PM Corbyn takes control we may be very glad of being able to move freely to the continent!
Michael Meacher was also from the left (and I believe was the only member of the Blair Government with governmental experience albeit as a junior minister). He has been in parliament for 45 years now, and was a reasonably competent minister. A good candidate for Shadow Chancellor?
As to the election: what is done is done. The MPs will have to get behind JC and Watson, objecting now to the rules of the race is too late.
Agreed - or shadow Foreign Secretary. If we defy the .35 of Betfair punters who still think JC will lose, I also think it's obvious that Burnham will get a senior slot, as he's the embodiment of the concept of party unity and despite scepticism here the best-liked in the general public. McDonnell as JC's campaign manager will get one too - he's another left-winger who presents his ideas reasonably, and could see him in a job like Health (Southam predicted he'd be Shadow Chancellor, which I doubt). But JC should have another heavyweight centrist appointment in a senior slot - one of the Select Committee chairs?
Random thought, but would he recall Margaret Hodge? They've worked together for years, and despite everything (age, scandals, letter writing etc.) she still remains a pretty formidable figure. It's easier to imagine her landing punches on Osborne than pretty much any other plausible candidate.
It would be a very courageous move, in the Yes Minister sense - but then so is electing Corbyn leader in the first place. If you wish to screw up, might as well go the whole hog.
Hodge? Meacher? McDonnell? Corbyn? It sounds like the Shadow Cabinet could end up with an average age third only to the Soviet politburo and the 2016 US presidential candidates.
Good news for us younger ones though Mr Herdson, it gives us more time to get to the top if we wish!
Who was it said that the worst part of growing old was that it more and more difficult to find somebody who didn't amount to much when he was your age?
Everyone under 65 now has the example of Jeremy Corbyn. Man deserves to win for that alone.
Unless the absolute right of freedom of movement dies we will never have control of our borders. But the EU won't negotiate on that.
So we must leave.
Dan Hannan notes that both Guy Verhofstadt and Jacque Delors have suggested associate membership for the UK, where we can opt out of a lot more but we lose voting rights. That sounds very attractive right now.
But will that still require FoM? The EEC definitely does and EFTA largely does too.
Precisely. This is the core question for the Out side to take seriously.
Where as our IN friends have the minor detail of explaining 630,000 immigrants and the Calais fiasco to a seethingly angry public, good luck with that.
Calais has absolutely nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with whether we remain in the EU or not, and only a fraudster would try to claim it has. These are non-EU citizens trying to get into the UK illegally. Are you suggesting they'd suddenly stop doing so if we left the EU but joined the EEA?
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 4m4 minutes ago Sir Stephen House, chief constable of Police Scotland, to stand down from his post, BBC Scotland learns http://bbc.in/1hgZgmH
I think he meant, promote a select committee chair to the SC on the basis there are some 'heavyweights' among them. THat's what I thought it meant, anyway.
Yes, that's what I meant - sorry if it wasn't clear. I was thinking of Hodge as a possibility - even people who really dislike her concede she's done a good job in her current role: being questioned by her Committee is a forensic experience in which you're the corpse. The same is true of Keith Vaz, though I'm not sure the wider public has absorbed that.
Unless the absolute right of freedom of movement dies we will never have control of our borders. But the EU won't negotiate on that.
So we must leave.
Dan Hannan notes that both Guy Verhofstadt and Jacque Delors have suggested associate membership for the UK, where we can opt out of a lot more but we lose voting rights. That sounds very attractive right now.
But will that still require FoM? The EEC definitely does and EFTA largely does too.
Precisely. This is the core question for the Out side to take seriously.
Where as our IN friends have the minor detail of explaining 630,000 immigrants and the Calais fiasco to a seethingly angry public, good luck with that.
The 630 000 included 83 000 UK citizens returning. It is why the net figure is used.
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 4m4 minutes ago Sir Stephen House, chief constable of Police Scotland, to stand down from his post, BBC Scotland learns http://bbc.in/1hgZgmH
And thus the Zoomer frothing this morning is revealed...
YouGov analysis of Labour supporters also finds most Mr Corbyn's backers see America as the 'greatest single threat to world peace' in revealing research
Most of Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters believe America is the “greatest single threat to world peace” and one in four think a “secretive elite” controls the globe, according to pollster analysis.
YouGov analysis of Labour supporters also finds most Mr Corbyn's backers see America as the 'greatest single threat to world peace' in revealing research
Most of Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters believe America is the “greatest single threat to world peace” and one in four think a “secretive elite” controls the globe, according to pollster analysis.
Does that mean they are 'illuminatiéd'?
And with that terrible pun, back to my new A-level SoWs.
@LOS_Fisher: Interesting that Tessa Jowell taking peerage while trying to win Labour ticket for London mayoral contest. Will Londoners back a baroness?
@LOS_Fisher: Interesting that Tessa Jowell taking peerage while trying to win Labour ticket for London mayoral contest. Will Londoners back a baroness?
Curious that she's accepted it. Might be a straw in the wind, but then that might be my own book talking.
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 4m4 minutes ago Sir Stephen House, chief constable of Police Scotland, to stand down from his post, BBC Scotland learns http://bbc.in/1hgZgmH
And thus the Zoomer frothing this morning is revealed...
Unless the absolute right of freedom of movement dies we will never have control of our borders. But the EU won't negotiate on that.
So we must leave.
Dan Hannan notes that both Guy Verhofstadt and Jacque Delors have suggested associate membership for the UK, where we can opt out of a lot more but we lose voting rights. That sounds very attractive right now.
But will that still require FoM? The EEC definitely does and EFTA largely does too.
Precisely. This is the core question for the Out side to take seriously.
Where as our IN friends have the minor detail of explaining 630,000 immigrants and the Calais fiasco to a seethingly angry public, good luck with that.
Calais has absolutely nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with whether we remain in the EU or not, and only a fraudster would try to claim it has. These are non-EU citizens trying to get into the UK illegally. Are you suggesting they'd suddenly stop doing so if we left the EU but joined the EEA?
It might not in your mind, it doesn't especially in my mind, it certainly does in the mind of a lot of voters. I don't need to suggest it, people are making their own minds up, they might be wrong, but in the current climate they are not going to believe politicians who say otherwise, and they are going to vote OUT.
The 630 000 included 83 000 UK citizens returning. It is why the net figure is used.
I am well aware of that. You and Mr Nabavi have the same problem in believing this referendum is going to be won or lost on facts, its going to be on employment scare stories vs immigration anger. Truth is perception.
That's an interesting analysis, though at times a bit trivial:
"In most respects, there is more that unites the supporters of the four candidates than divides them: as a group they are much more political, more left wing and more partisan than the country at large."
Labour Party members and active supporters are more political, left-wing and partisan than the average member of the general public. Duh.
But the distinction between idealists and analytical types rings true - there's an overlap, of course (I'd count myself in both) but it's important in decisions what one weighs most heavily.
What a dreadful shame Cameron is making our country so great people want to live here.
Maybe we could get some loonies in charge to destroy the country so we have net emigration and then everyone will be happy. Err ....
The problem is not that people want to live here. The problem is that so many that want to live here are let in. Your argument is like dismissing complaints about traffic jams by saying we should celebrate that the roads are so good everyone wants to drive on them.
Calais has absolutely nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with whether we remain in the EU or not, and only a fraudster would try to claim it has. These are non-EU citizens trying to get into the UK illegally. Are you suggesting they'd suddenly stop doing so if we left the EU but joined the EEA?
It might not in your mind, it doesn't especially in my mind, it certainly does in the mind of a lot of voters. I don't need to suggest it, people are making their own minds up, they might be wrong, but in the current climate they are not going to believe politicians who say otherwise, and they are going to vote OUT.
So you're saying its not true but people may believe it to be true?
If I'm understanding you correctly you are reduced to claiming the voters are idiots? They may be, but I don't think so, but it would indeed take an idiot to think that co-operating with the French less would make the Calais situation better.
What a dreadful shame Cameron is making our country so great people want to live here.
Maybe we could get some loonies in charge to destroy the country so we have net emigration and then everyone will be happy. Err ....
I am sure you will convince the 50%+ of the population who want immigration brought down a lot of the merits of your argument.
I'm not trying to convince anyone. I know that my belief in immigration is unpopular. Hence why others who share it who are in politics (like Boris Johnson etc) speak less on the subject the more they're trying to win popular support. Thankfully I'm not a politician so can speak my mind as I please.
Comments
http://londontownwalks.com/2013/02/19/suffragette-attack-on-lloyd-george/
More important is immigration into the UK and Cammo's makeover in the referendum as the EU forever or bust.
For all the talk of complications and nuance, there is a simple fact at the heart of all this: we can not control our borders under current EU rules. They must change or we must leave. Frank Field is saying as much this morning.
Kippers & Mail in a froth = expected; and then if/when the Graun & Mirror get in a froth (have they?) the Cons sit back and behave like Cons...imposing restrictions (or arguing hard at EU renegotiations) for less immigration with a backstop against "nasty" claims of "but you all wanted us to do this."
"1) Scottish Gaelic is a Celtic language brought to northern Britain from Ireland c. 1500 years ago. It replaced the indigenous speech of the region, and continued in to be spoken in the highlands after Scots replaced it in the lowlands.
2) Scots is a dialect of English that evolved out the dialect of northern England, and came to dominate lowland Scotland.
3) Scottish English is the variant of Modern English spoken in Scotland, mostly replacing the above."
So Gaelic is not even originally indigenous Scottish, or the Kilt, Haggis, Whisky or even golf. We do "absorb" things into our culture and try and, mostly successfully, make them better. And if no one can remember the originals, even more better ;^)
Fiona was extremely eloquent on the topic and came across well as always, not hard against BBC Scotland mind you.
Mark Hilton, immigration policy director at London First, said: “The business community wants the government to tone down its anti-migration rhetoric. Migration is an important part of being in a thriving, modern economy.
“As we’ve seen in recent days, the global economy remains fragile, so now is not the time to pull up the drawbridge to the type of global talent that will help drive our economic growth.
“Immigrants are job creators, allowing British businesses to expand into new markets, by bringing specialist skills. So far from taking our jobs, they actually create more of them.”
That must be why Bradford and Tower Hamlets are at the cutting edge of scientific and technological innovation, and are envied globally for their skilled workforce and their pioneering spirit of social liberalism. Rumour has it that several American technology giants are in fact thinking of relocating there!
Just how many times has Simon Hughes run for that seat!
Unless the absolute right of freedom of movement dies we will never have control of our borders. But the EU won't negotiate on that.
So we must leave.
It would be a very courageous move, in the Yes Minister sense - but then so is electing Corbyn leader in the first place. If you wish to screw up, might as well go the whole hog.
I still think In will win comfortably.
You're not suggesting that they do as the whips tell them, I hope.
Apart from questions on Policing in Kirkcaldy (And Sir Stephen House), A&E waiting times increasing, changing the Council Tax, Roads and crumbling infrastructures, Prestwick airport (Mama Sturgeons constituency), Aberdeen (if the oil price stays low, the SNP will be wiped out there next year). Most of these are known about, but for MalcolmG and others to be let loose so early in the day normally indicates that there is volcano about to explode.
So you really are as stupid as you post , Scott's brother by the look of it. Certainly cretinous enough for it. Unliek you JSA boys , we wrkers need to get on early and can only be around sporadically. To save you the bother of looking it up , work = gainfully employed and not living off others.
https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/politics/british/next-shadow-chancellor/220880798/
(Dennis Skinner at 50/1 would be amusing!)
But I do think it could now be close, like the Scottish referendum result, if played correctly, which would be a very pyrrhic victory for In, and wouldn't settle the issue.
It might even force an extra concession. But what is really needed is sovereign borders. FoM was designed for a very small EU of western countries in the 60s to 80s. It was never intended, nor should it be, a conduit for mass immigration.
Perhaps a fudge could be found where the 'principle' is maintained, but there are net immigration thresholds above which EU member states would have a right of suspension.
» show previous quotes
Even mony, the SNP aren't getting 'wiped out' in Aberdeen...
The Party Machine says they are popular, others are not so sure. Who to believe?
So glad you couldn't find anything else to dispute in the post though. PS, what is "mony"? The new Scottish currency or a new lady member in the House of Lords, in which case I wouldn't mind layi.. Er! well!
"National Insurance number (NINo) allocations to overseas nationals
Figure 9 shows the rolling 12 month totals for NINo registrations to overseas nationals, split by EU and non-EU nationals. In YE June 2015, 917,000 overseas nationals registered for a NINo of which three-quarters were from within the EU.
It should be noted that these figures also include short-term migrants and are not a direct measure of when a person migrated to the UK, as those registering may have arrived to live in the UK weeks, months or years before registering – and may have subsequently returned abroad.
Although figures do accurately reflect the number of NINos registered over time, a change to the process of recording NINos in 2014, means that the volume of NINo registrations was lower in YE June 2014 and then higher in the latest year to YE June 2015 than would otherwise be the case. Caution should therefore be taken when making comparisons of NINo registrations between these periods."
My understanding is that migrants only count when they are resident for a year, so someone working seasonally or even as a Locum Doctor for a few months, would not show up in the migrant numbers but would need an NI number.
The difference in numbers is not that hard to reconcile.
Assuming he was 20 in 1909 that makes him 126... Old Jack can only be 112 or something (I think he was 109 when I started reading the site)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-explained-what-are-their-backgrounds-gender-ages-and-race-10176898.html
(The minimum age was sometimes ignored until the nineteenth century - Fox was elected an MP at 19, for example.)
So he would definitely be the oldest active politician alive today, with the possible exception of some of the dinosaurs still roaming the Labour party 65 million years after their official decease.
Who was it said that the worst part of growing old was that it more and more difficult to find somebody who didn't amount to much when he was your age?
Everyone under 65 now has the example of Jeremy Corbyn. Man deserves to win for that alone.
Aberdeen is clearly the city where folks are much more aware of the oil industry, however even here production levels matter more than price, Scottish oil production is at a 15 year high and due to tax incentives, belatedly introduced in the budget, oil companies are continuing to invest. The Coalition's 3 month delay in introducing the tax incentives in a naïve attempt to damage the SNP, cost thousands of jobs.
From the SNP perspective oil taxes over the last 35 years constituted a £300 billion transfer of wealth to London and the South East, with Scotland receiving little direct benefit from these revenues. Having lived and worked in London for most of the last 30 years I'm happy to admit that I benefited particularly in the 1980s and 1990s as these revenues were used to re-gentrify London. In their recent Northern Powerhouse announcements both Cameron and Osbo have admitted that for to long investment has been focused on London and the South East.
In terms of what the SNP person on the street believes. I think they view Scotland as having a diverse economy and probably do buy the SNP line that all revenues are a bonus. Scott and the likes of Kevin Hauge can huff and puff all they like about the oil price - they're wasting their time shouting in an echo chamber.
Sooner or later practical politics will catch up with the idealised theory as enshrined into law by the European elites.
Saying we'll leave but then join the EEA or some similar deal is just the worst of both worlds IMO, and certainly would be a fraudulent prospectus if the Out side are going to use immigration as an argument.
Sir Stephen House, chief constable of Police Scotland, to stand down from his post, BBC Scotland learns http://bbc.in/1hgZgmH
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34072703
Police Scotland Chief Constable resigns.
And with that terrible pun, back to my new A-level SoWs.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/dame-tessa-jowell-to-be-awarded-peerage-for-role-in-delivering-2012-olympics-a2922156.html
Trademark Blair, continuity Cam
https://twitter.com/montie/status/636843092612653057
@policescotland
"In most respects, there is more that unites the supporters of the four candidates than divides them: as a group they are much more political, more left wing and more partisan than the country at large."
Labour Party members and active supporters are more political, left-wing and partisan than the average member of the general public. Duh.
But the distinction between idealists and analytical types rings true - there's an overlap, of course (I'd count myself in both) but it's important in decisions what one weighs most heavily.
Maybe we could get some loonies in charge to destroy the country so we have net emigration and then everyone will be happy. Err ....
If I'm understanding you correctly you are reduced to claiming the voters are idiots? They may be, but I don't think so, but it would indeed take an idiot to think that co-operating with the French less would make the Calais situation better.