Regarding the previous thread on Stephen Pound and Rees-Mogg's comments. I know quite a few people who wouldn't date a Conservative, funnily enough. I myself would probably want to be with someone with a similar political outlook to mine as well.
Well so much for the theory that opposites attract, then...
I think in some cases it may be true. But I get the feeling most people tend to go with people who share the same interests, similar outlooks etc.
That piece does explain the problem quite well but is slightly less good on the answers.
Put very simply there have been 2 conflicting trends as a result of the Barnett formula applying to the Scottish bloc grant for some years now. On the one hand the original differentials which reflected the need for higher spending on average in Scotland (as a result of low population density and a variety of other factors) have been diluted by the principle that the overall growth in public spending is shared equally on a per capita basis. This means the differential part should have played a smaller and smaller part in the overall grant.
In practice, however, this has been more than offset by the differential growth rates of population in the UK. The population of Scotland has been broadly static for a time when the population of England has increased by nearly 10m. Because the ratios between the countries in relation to the differential part have been fixed the consequence has been that the per capita spending on those parts has fallen by much more in England than it has in Scotland with the result that the Barnett squeeze referred to above has been offset and public spending per capita in Scotland has remained comfortably ahead of the UK average.
Those in England may well think this is a problem in itself in that per capita the Scots have continued to get more public spending than the English. The counterargument has been, until very recently, that we also generated more tax per capita because of the contributions of North Sea Oil and that the problems that the original Barnett differentials recognised have not gone away.
This somewhat cosy consensus that this was probably more trouble than it was worth has been undone by the idea that a significant proportion of Scottish taxes will be taken out of the UK pool and retained in Scotland. The arrangement is coming at a time when Scottish tax revenues are falling sharply. The Scottish Government therefore face the risk of a disproportionate squeeze on Scottish public spending because it will be disproportionately affected by the North Sea Oil collapse. This is not a PRT issue but the associated IT losses from over 80K of the better paid jobs in Scotland disappearing.
My guess is that the SG will conclude, correctly, that it is not in Scotland's interests to break away from the UK pot at a time when we are being adversely affected in this way. The consequence of that is that they will not do the deal. But they have to find a way to make that Cameron's fault rather than a recognition that Scotland is safer and more prosperous within a larger, more stable economic unit.
A Royal Commission is a good idea. Won't happen, though. Some people treat the NHS like a religion.
And yet other people believe that the UK is congenitally more economically liberal than the continent and has a stronger faith in trusting the free market. It's a funny old country.
My guess is that the SG will conclude, correctly, that it is not in Scotland's interests to break away from the UK pot at a time when we are being adversely affected in this way. The consequence of that is that they will not do the deal. But they have to find a way to make that Cameron's fault rather than a recognition that Scotland is safer and more prosperous within a larger, more stable economic unit.
That's what the economics points to - and if anyone can pull off a hypocritical volte face of such heroic proportions its the SNP - but how long can they keep doing this dance of the seven veils - first it was FFA NOW! then FFA...Sometime.....then FFA, never heard of it.... Now we've got 'can we keep the deal where you've been ripping us off for decades instead of keeping our own money?'
As a distraction from Yoon migrants' sterile and repetitive perorations, an informative, even-handed and (as is usual with Ian Jack) beautifully written piece on Trident in all its complexity.
'less in the case of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, which is owned by a consortium of two American companies and Serco)'
Except it's owned by the British Government, who also hold the golden share in AWE plc, the operators of the site under a 25 year contract.
It would never be allowed in the United States.
Outsourcing? Pantex is operated by a consortium of non government corporations.
Or a foreign operator? Burghfield and Aldermaston remain staffed by Brits, as do Lockheed and Serco's UK operations. In the same way that defence businesses in the US, owned by British companies have native employees.
As a distraction from Yoon migrants' sterile and repetitive perorations, an informative, even-handed and (as is usual with Ian Jack) beautifully written piece on Trident in all its complexity.
'less in the case of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, which is owned by a consortium of two American companies and Serco)'
Except it's owned by the British Government, who also hold the golden share in AWE plc, the operators of the site under a 25 year contract.
It would never be allowed in the United States.
Outsourcing? Pantex is operated by a consortium of non government corporations.
Or a foreign operator? Burghfield and Aldermaston remain staffed by Brits, as do Lockheed and Serco's UK operations. In the same way that defence businesses in the US, owned by British companies have native employees.
Pantex is not owned or operated by foreigners.
The United States uses national security as a cover for protectionism, hidden subsidies, and actual national security. HMG (and HMO) should look and learn.
'By far the biggest change is page 5 on protections for non-Euro economies in the finance sector. Rather than confirm that the UK can operate outside EU's single rule book for banks when Eurozone integrates, it now says that UK has to operate by the "corresponding rules" of the ECB.
So in short, it now confirms that the City of London will be completely at the mercy of rules set by the ECB'
I expect Richard N will still have that down as 'real progress'.
Dave hasn't tried to polish a turd. He has tried to polish diarrhoea and the resulting mess is disgusting to all except a few die hard party loyalists.
A truly shitty deal.
If memory serves, in 2013 Cameron set out what he said were his fundamental requirements for his renegotiation, points that would have to be met if he were to recommend the UK remain in the EU. As far as I can see he has achieved none of those points. How then am I to judge the result?
Am I to conclude that as the negotiations have failed by Cameron's own criteria I should vote to leave? Alternatively, perhaps Cameron didn't mean what he said in 2013 and he really has got a good deal and I should vote to stay. The problem with that is it means accepting that Cameron lied to me before so why in heaven's name should I trust him now?
On the whole I think I'll go with my basic instincts.
As a distraction from Yoon migrants' sterile and repetitive perorations, an informative, even-handed and (as is usual with Ian Jack) beautifully written piece on Trident in all its complexity.
something upsetting the primate enclosure today , they seem frenzied in their Scottish posts today. Baw face must be concerned about something to have set them off.
Majority for indy with Brent at $30 a barrel must be hard to take..
The only thing hard to take are the looming budget increases we'll have to meet - for mental health care north of the border....
Typical sneering Tory, they cannot hide their vileness
The no detriment principle is not a one way insurance policy that protects only Scottish taxpayers. It protects rUK taxpayers too.
There are numerous different reasonable ways in which no detriment could be modelled and applied
There is no one right way of doing this. Different countries use different methods.
At its core, no detriment is about aligning powers with risks and responsibilities.
That is, governments should carry the risks associated with their policies, just as they enjoy the benefits that may accrue from them.
Demographics (population) are part of that risk. What we need is a fair share of the relevant risks between the Scottish and UK governments.
Some risks are better borne by the UK as a whole. Eg the volatility of North Sea revenues, and the state pension.
Other risks have to be borne by Scottish Ministers. Eg the £50 million shortfall caused by Mr Swinney's land transactions tax hike.
That £50 million hole is a detriment to Scotland. But it would be manifestly unfair to expect rUK taxpayers to fill the hole.
The argument is about *how* population risks are shared fairly.
The Scottish Govt have numerous powers to encourage the Scottish population to grow.
What the FM has been saying about attracting junior doctors to leave England and move to Scotland is an example!
Once this is understood, it's plain that risks over population need to be shared between the govts and not shouldered only by the UK.
complete desperation sets in , we are scraping barrel when Tompkins is wheeled out, first failed Tory businessman and now their tame professor begging for MSP list seat.
As a distraction from Yoon migrants' sterile and repetitive perorations, an informative, even-handed and (as is usual with Ian Jack) beautifully written piece on Trident in all its complexity.
something upsetting the primate enclosure today , they seem frenzied in their Scottish posts today. Baw face must be concerned about something to have set them off.
Majority for indy with Brent at $30 a barrel must be hard to take..
I think you mean:
Polls point to people voting for magic beans when there is no vote scheduled.
The no detriment principle is not a one way insurance policy that protects only Scottish taxpayers. It protects rUK taxpayers too.
There are numerous different reasonable ways in which no detriment could be modelled and applied
There is no one right way of doing this. Different countries use different methods.
At its core, no detriment is about aligning powers with risks and responsibilities.
That is, governments should carry the risks associated with their policies, just as they enjoy the benefits that may accrue from them.
Demographics (population) are part of that risk. What we need is a fair share of the relevant risks between the Scottish and UK governments.
Some risks are better borne by the UK as a whole. Eg the volatility of North Sea revenues, and the state pension.
Other risks have to be borne by Scottish Ministers. Eg the £50 million shortfall caused by Mr Swinney's land transactions tax hike.
That £50 million hole is a detriment to Scotland. But it would be manifestly unfair to expect rUK taxpayers to fill the hole.
The argument is about *how* population risks are shared fairly.
The Scottish Govt have numerous powers to encourage the Scottish population to grow.
What the FM has been saying about attracting junior doctors to leave England and move to Scotland is an example!
Once this is understood, it's plain that risks over population need to be shared between the govts and not shouldered only by the UK.
complete desperation sets in , we are scraping barrel when Tompkins is wheeled out, first failed Tory businessman and now their tame professor begging for MSP list seat.
Care to provide your own explanation of 'no detriment'?
That piece does explain the problem quite well but is slightly less good on the answers.
Those in England may well think this is a problem in itself in that per capita the Scots have continued to get more public spending than the English. The counterargument has been, until very recently, that we also generated more tax per capita because of the contributions of North Sea Oil and that the problems that the original Barnett differentials recognised have not gone away.
This somewhat cosy consensus that this was probably more trouble than it was worth has been undone by the idea that a significant proportion of Scottish taxes will be taken out of the UK pool and retained in Scotland. The arrangement is coming at a time when Scottish tax revenues are falling sharply. The Scottish Government therefore face the risk of a disproportionate squeeze on Scottish public spending because it will be disproportionately affected by the North Sea Oil collapse. This is not a PRT issue but the associated IT losses from over 80K of the better paid jobs in Scotland disappearing.
My guess is that the SG will conclude, correctly, that it is not in Scotland's interests to break away from the UK pot at a time when we are being adversely affected in this way. The consequence of that is that they will not do the deal. But they have to find a way to make that Cameron's fault rather than a recognition that Scotland is safer and more prosperous within a larger, more stable economic unit.
David, as you eloquently state it is very obvious that it is a ruse to beggar Scotland, no sane person would accept the turd sandwich Cameron is offering. It will be turned down and May will show that people know exactly who is to blame. Just a pity that the level of discussion on here , yourself excepted , is so pathetic and ignorant. You must be embarrassed to be associated with the Tories on here, a thouroughly odious group indeed and shows why the Tories are so reviled in Scotland even by people with Tory viewpoints. Good to know that there is at least one Tory with some humanity in the UK.
As a distraction from Yoon migrants' sterile and repetitive perorations, an informative, even-handed and (as is usual with Ian Jack) beautifully written piece on Trident in all its complexity.
something upsetting the primate enclosure today , they seem frenzied in their Scottish posts today. Baw face must be concerned about something to have set them off.
Majority for indy with Brent at $30 a barrel must be hard to take..
The only thing hard to take are the looming budget increases we'll have to meet - for mental health care north of the border....
Typical sneering Tory, they cannot hide their vileness
Can dish it out, but gets all squeamish when he has to take some back.
Am I to conclude that as the negotiations have failed by Cameron's own criteria I should vote to leave? Alternatively, perhaps Cameron didn't mean what he said in 2013 and he really has got a good deal and I should vote to stay. The problem with that is it means accepting that Cameron lied to me before so why in heaven's name should I trust him now?
Even the arch-cynical who where convinced he was going to come home with piss poor deal have been looking on open-mouthed at how poor the deal was, and how its getting even more poor as time goes. This open-mouthed disbelief is rapidly turning in annoyance and rage at his shameless and wholly dishonest attempt to portray this bit of fluff as heralding the second coming. The genuine waverers who were actually expecting him to come back with enough to let them vote for REMAIN and keep their self respect are probably incandescent.
As a distraction from Yoon migrants' sterile and repetitive perorations, an informative, even-handed and (as is usual with Ian Jack) beautifully written piece on Trident in all its complexity.
something upsetting the primate enclosure today , they seem frenzied in their Scottish posts today. Baw face must be concerned about something to have set them off.
Majority for indy with Brent at $30 a barrel must be hard to take..
The only thing hard to take are the looming budget increases we'll have to meet - for mental health care north of the border....
Typical sneering Tory, they cannot hide their vileness
Can dish it out, but gets all squeamish when he has to take some back.
Who is squeamish, did I touch a nerve their jessie boy
'By far the biggest change is page 5 on protections for non-Euro economies in the finance sector. Rather than confirm that the UK can operate outside EU's single rule book for banks when Eurozone integrates, it now says that UK has to operate by the "corresponding rules" of the ECB.
So in short, it now confirms that the City of London will be completely at the mercy of rules set by the ECB'
I expect Richard N will still have that down as 'real progress'.
Dave hasn't tried to polish a turd. He has tried to polish diarrhoea and the resulting mess is disgusting to all except a few die hard party loyalists.
A truly shitty deal.
If memory serves, in 2013 Cameron set out what he said were his fundamental requirements for his renegotiation, points that would have to be met if he were to recommend the UK remain in the EU. As far as I can see he has achieved none of those points. How then am I to judge the result?
Am I to conclude that as the negotiations have failed by Cameron's own criteria I should vote to leave? Alternatively, perhaps Cameron didn't mean what he said in 2013 and he really has got a good deal and I should vote to stay. The problem with that is it means accepting that Cameron lied to me before so why in heaven's name should I trust him now?
On the whole I think I'll go with my basic instincts.
What really troubles me is that, without the "renegotiation process", had it been a straight "take it or leave it" vote that was promised, and we were now at polling day, I'd find it easier to go with my deeper gut instincts and vote Remain, however much I loathe the EU as it has become. But because voting Leave now not only endorses support for the UK in the EU, but implies support for Dave's shitty little deal, and for everything else that now gets thrown at us for years to come on the basis that "the UK only had 4 particular concerns which were all addressed in the 2016 deal and you can't have any complaints about x, y or z that you didn't negotiate changes on back then", I now find it harder to back Remain.
Dave's Deal has made things worse, not better - if that were possible!
The no detriment principle is not a one way insurance policy that protects only Scottish taxpayers. It protects rUK taxpayers too.
There are numerous different reasonable ways in which no detriment could be modelled and applied
There is no one right way of doing this. Different countries use different methods.
At its core, no detriment is about aligning powers with risks and responsibilities.
That is, governments should carry the risks associated with their policies, just as they enjoy the benefits that may accrue from them.
Demographics (population) are part of that risk. What we need is a fair share of the relevant risks between the Scottish and UK governments.
Some risks are better borne by the UK as a whole. Eg the volatility of North Sea revenues, and the state pension.
Other risks have to be borne by Scottish Ministers. Eg the £50 million shortfall caused by Mr Swinney's land transactions tax hike.
That £50 million hole is a detriment to Scotland. But it would be manifestly unfair to expect rUK taxpayers to fill the hole.
The argument is about *how* population risks are shared fairly.
The Scottish Govt have numerous powers to encourage the Scottish population to grow.
What the FM has been saying about attracting junior doctors to leave England and move to Scotland is an example!
Once this is understood, it's plain that risks over population need to be shared between the govts and not shouldered only by the UK.
complete desperation sets in , we are scraping barrel when Tompkins is wheeled out, first failed Tory businessman and now their tame professor begging for MSP list seat.
Care to provide your own explanation of 'no detriment'?
Or just the usual splenetic incoherence?
Even a Tory like you should understand that it means "same position maintained " and that taking billions off the block grant could never be polished up to show that. Can you explain how taking billions off Scottish budget is "No Detriment", give me a laugh.
I'd be interested to see the proportion of Tory MP waverers that have been convinced to stay in on the basis of Dave's deal compared to the fence sitters/neutrals that it has convinced in the general population.
That piece does explain the problem quite well but is slightly less good on the answers.
Those in England may well think this is a problem in itself in that per capita the Scots have continued to get more public spending than the English. The counterargument has been, until very recently, that we also generated more tax per capita because of the contributions of North Sea Oil and that the problems that the original Barnett differentials recognised have not gone away.
This somewhat cosy consensus that this was probably more trouble than it was worth has been undone by the idea that a significant proportion of Scottish taxes will be taken out of the UK pool and retained in Scotland. The arrangement is coming at a time when Scottish tax revenues are falling sharply. The Scottish Government therefore face the risk of a disproportionate squeeze on Scottish public spending because it will be disproportionately affected by the North Sea Oil collapse. This is not a PRT issue but the associated IT losses from over 80K of the better paid jobs in Scotland disappearing.
My guess is that the SG will conclude, correctly, that it is not in Scotland's interests to break away from the UK pot at a time when we are being adversely affected in this way. The consequence of that is that they will not do the deal. But they have to find a way to make that Cameron's fault rather than a recognition that Scotland is safer and more prosperous within a larger, more stable economic unit.
It will be turned down
Another one to file along with...
***Cameron will be FORCED to debate Salmond*** ***Indy will WIN**** ***Cameron will lose***
And others too numerous to mention.....
I had been worried, but you've put my mind at ease.....
As a distraction from Yoon migrants' sterile and repetitive perorations, an informative, even-handed and (as is usual with Ian Jack) beautifully written piece on Trident in all its complexity.
something upsetting the primate enclosure today , they seem frenzied in their Scottish posts today. Baw face must be concerned about something to have set them off.
Majority for indy with Brent at $30 a barrel must be hard to take..
The only thing hard to take are the looming budget increases we'll have to meet - for mental health care north of the border....
Typical sneering Tory, they cannot hide their vileness
Can dish it out, but gets all squeamish when he has to take some back.
Who is squeamish, did I touch a nerve their jessie boy
I ain't got nerves. And if I did - you couldn't get near to touching 'em....
Missed this at time but apparently the objection to the the UK having flexibility outside the single rulebook on banking in the Eurozone's banking union came up last week.
Ironically, this showed the exact dynamic we're worried about: Eurozone powers of France and Germany on one side, non-Euro UK on other, and we obviously lose the debate as we're outnumbered. That loss this time means we face the same sort of loss more and more in future.
Regarding the previous thread on Stephen Pound and Rees-Mogg's comments. I know quite a few people who wouldn't date a Conservative, funnily enough. I myself would probably want to be with someone with a similar political outlook to mine as well.
Well so much for the theory that opposites attract, then...
I think in some cases it may be true. But I get the feeling most people tend to go with people who share the same interests, similar outlooks etc.
Sounds like a good way to have a boring life and never be challenged or experience new things.
I'd be interested to see the proportion of Tory MP waverers that have been convinced to stay in on the basis of Dave's deal compared to the fence sitters/neutrals that it has convinced in the general population.
Almost impossible to work out, though at least without a time machine and a lot of patience.
The answers if queried just won't match up to the truth.
But because voting Leave now not only endorses support for the UK in the EU, but implies support for Dave's shitty little deal, and for everything else that now gets thrown at us for years to come on the basis that "the UK only had 4 particular concerns which were all addressed in the 2016 deal and you can't have any complaints about x, y or z that you didn't negotiate changes on back then", I now find it harder to back Remain.
Dave's Deal has made things worse, not better - if that were possible!
voting Leaveendorses support for the UK in the EU ?!
'By far the biggest change is page 5 on protections for non-Euro economies in the finance sector. Rather than confirm that the UK can operate outside EU's single rule book for banks when Eurozone integrates, it now says that UK has to operate by the "corresponding rules" of the ECB.
So in short, it now confirms that the City of London will be completely at the mercy of rules set by the ECB'
I expect Richard N will still have that down as 'real progress'.
Dave hasn't tried to polish a turd. He has tried to polish diarrhoea and the resulting mess is disgusting to all except a few die hard party loyalists.
A truly shitty deal.
If memory serves, in 2013 Cameron set out what he said were his fundamental requirements for his renegotiation, points that would have to be met if he were to recommend the UK remain in the EU. As far as I can see he has achieved none of those points. How then am I to judge the result?
Am I to conclude that as the negotiations have failed by Cameron's own criteria I should vote to leave? Alternatively, perhaps Cameron didn't mean what he said in 2013 and he really has got a good deal and I should vote to stay. The problem with that is it means accepting that Cameron lied to me before so why in heaven's name should I trust him now?
On the whole I think I'll go with my basic instincts.
What really troubles me is that, without the "renegotiation process", had it been a straight "take it or leave it" vote that was promised, and we were now at polling day, I'd find it easier to go with my deeper gut instincts and vote Remain, however much I loathe the EU as it has become. But because voting Leave now not only endorses support for the UK in the EU, but implies support for Dave's shitty little deal, and for everything else that now gets thrown at us for years to come on the basis that "the UK only had 4 particular concerns which were all addressed in the 2016 deal and you can't have any complaints about x, y or z that you didn't negotiate changes on back then", I now find it harder to back Remain.
Dave's Deal has made things worse, not better - if that were possible!
We should all vote LEAVE so that serious negotiations take place over substantive reforms to the EU instead of the sham of negotiations so far.
Cameron could not put forward serious changes up to now because the other EU countries know he wasn't serious about leaving the EU.
Once we have voted to LEAVE then the other EU countries know the negotiations are for real and will be more prepared to concede changes such as a big reduction in subsidies to the farming industry paid via the Common Agriculture Policy.
The no detriment principle is not a one way insurance policy that protects only Scottish taxpayers. It protects rUK taxpayers too.
There are numerous different reasonable ways in which no detriment could be modelled and applied
There is no one right way of doing this. Different countries use different methods.
At its core, no detriment is about aligning powers with risks and responsibilities.
That is, governments should carry the risks associated with their policies, just as they enjoy the benefits that may accrue from them.
Demographics (population) are part of that risk. What we need is a fair share of the relevant risks between the Scottish and UK governments.
Some risks are better borne by the UK as a whole. Eg the volatility of North Sea revenues, and the state pension.
Other risks have to be borne by Scottish Ministers. Eg the £50 million shortfall caused by Mr Swinney's land transactions tax hike.
That £50 million hole is a detriment to Scotland. But it would be manifestly unfair to expect rUK taxpayers to fill the hole.
The argument is about *how* population risks are shared fairly.
The Scottish Govt have numerous powers to encourage the Scottish population to grow.
What the FM has been saying about attracting junior doctors to leave England and move to Scotland is an example!
Once this is understood, it's plain that risks over population need to be shared between the govts and not shouldered only by the UK.
complete desperation sets in , we are scraping barrel when Tompkins is wheeled out, first failed Tory businessman and now their tame professor begging for MSP list seat.
Care to provide your own explanation of 'no detriment'?
Or just the usual splenetic incoherence?
Even a Tory like you should understand that it means "same position maintained " and that taking billions off the block grant could never be polished up to show that. Can you explain how taking billions off Scottish budget is "No Detriment", give me a laugh.
No it doesn't.
What you don't seem able to grasp is that 'taking billions off the rUK budget' is also a detriment - it cuts both ways.
And 'no detriment' applies at the start but is not an eternal 'Heads Scotland wins, Tails England loses' guarantee.
There ARE demographic challenges Scotland faces - an older population, which also dies younger (consider that for a moment...) - and there need to be ways of recognising that - but the principle of 'you make your bed, you lie in it' has to be part of the deal too.
Regarding the previous thread on Stephen Pound and Rees-Mogg's comments. I know quite a few people who wouldn't date a Conservative, funnily enough. I myself would probably want to be with someone with a similar political outlook to mine as well.
Well so much for the theory that opposites attract, then...
I think in some cases it may be true. But I get the feeling most people tend to go with people who share the same interests, similar outlooks etc.
Sounds like a good way to have a boring life and never be challenged or experience new things.
My parents never even knew which way each other voted, until they started discussing it many years after they'd both retired.
The idea of not wanting to date someone based on their political inclination is something I find quite ghastly. Mind you, I wouldn't want to be with someone who was a strong political activist who pushed politics that I disliked, if only because I could see myself being in the firing line for it. But that's not unique to politics, I wouldn't want to be with a campaigner for any ideological/philosophical/religious/social cause that would likely cause ructions.
For most people, politics (if it crosses their minds at all) is something that goes on in the background rather than a core part of their identity, and is, over the years, subject to change. It's also, except for the hardcore, quite personal and generally private, which is how my parents got along for so long without knowing how each other voted.
I wonder how may folk thought they'd never marry a Tory, yet when they were in their 50s found their partner (or even themselves) had magically transmogrified into one?
Once we have voted to LEAVE then the other EU countries know the negotiations are for real and will be more prepared to concede changes such as a big reduction in subsidies to the farming industry paid via the Common Agriculture Policy.
The French would never accept that, I think if we vote to leave then we will be on our way for the exit.
'By far the biggest change is page 5 on protections for non-Euro economies in the finance sector. Rather than confirm that the UK can operate outside EU's single rule book for banks when Eurozone integrates, it now says that UK has to operate by the "corresponding rules" of the ECB.
So in short, it now confirms that the City of London will be completely at the mercy of rules set by the ECB'
I expect Richard N will still have that down as 'real progress'.
Dave hasn't tried to polish a turd. He has tried to polish diarrhoea and the resulting mess is disgusting to all except a few die hard party loyalists.
A truly shitty deal.
If memory serves, in 2013 Cameron set out what he said were his fundamental requirements for his renegotiation, points that would have to be met if he were to recommend the UK remain in the EU. As far as I can see he has achieved none of those points. How then am I to judge the result?
Am I to conclude that as the negotiations have failed by Cameron's own criteria I should vote to leave? Alternatively, perhaps Cameron didn't mean what he said in 2013 and he really has got a good deal and I should vote to stay. The problem with that is it means accepting that Cameron lied to me before so why in heaven's name should I trust him now?
On the whole I think I'll go with my basic instincts.
What really troubles me is that, without the "renegotiation process", had it been a straight "take it or leave it" vote that was promised, and we were now at polling day, I'd find it easier to go with my deeper gut instincts and vote Remain, however much I loathe the EU as it has become. But because voting Leave now not only endorses support for the UK in the EU, but implies support for Dave's shitty little deal, and for everything else that now gets thrown at us for years to come on the basis that "the UK only had 4 particular concerns which were all addressed in the 2016 deal and you can't have any complaints about x, y or z that you didn't negotiate changes on back then", I now find it harder to back Remain.
Dave's Deal has made things worse, not better - if that were possible!
And second iteration of memo actually states a single set of rules for finance will have to apply to non-Euro members too, clarifying an ambiguity against us on issue of major importance. What a disaster.
'By far the biggest change is page 5 on protections for non-Euro economies in the finance sector. Rather than confirm that the UK can operate outside EU's single rule book for banks when Eurozone integrates, it now says that UK has to operate by the "corresponding rules" of the ECB.
So in short, it now confirms that the City of London will be completely at the mercy of rules set by the ECB'
I expect Richard N will still have that down as 'real progress'.
Dave hasn't tried to polish a turd. He has tried to polish diarrhoea and the resulting mess is disgusting to all except a few die hard party loyalists.
A truly shitty deal.
If memory serves, in 2013 Cameron set out what he said were his fundamental requirements for his renegotiation, points that would have to be met if he were to recommend the UK remain in the EU. As far as I can see he has achieved none of those points. How then am I to judge the result?
Am I to conclude that as the negotiations have failed by Cameron's own criteria I should vote to leave? Alternatively, perhaps Cameron didn't mean what he said in 2013 and he really has got a good deal and I should vote to stay. The problem with that is it means accepting that Cameron lied to me before so why in heaven's name should I trust him now?
On the whole I think I'll go with my basic instincts.
What really troubles me is that, without the "renegotiation process", had it been a straight "take it or leave it" vote that was promised, and we were now at polling day, I'd find it easier to go with my deeper gut instincts and vote Remain, however much I loathe the EU as it has become. But because voting Leave now not only endorses support for the UK in the EU, but implies support for Dave's shitty little deal, and for everything else that now gets thrown at us for years to come on the basis that "the UK only had 4 particular concerns which were all addressed in the 2016 deal and you can't have any complaints about x, y or z that you didn't negotiate changes on back then", I now find it harder to back Remain.
Dave's Deal has made things worse, not better - if that were possible!
That is a very interesting point of view, Mr. Sykes, and one I had not thought of. Thank you.
For now I must away to the early summer of 1940 and the discussions about forming the Polish Air Force (in exile) and the mysteries of No. 3 School of Technical Training in Blackpool. Thanks one and all for more interesting discussion this morning. Play nicely.
I'd be interested to see the proportion of Tory MP waverers that have been convinced to stay in on the basis of Dave's deal compared to the fence sitters/neutrals that it has convinced in the general population.
The "deal" seems to have had precisely the opposite effect to that which was intended.
Once we have voted to LEAVE then the other EU countries know the negotiations are for real and will be more prepared to concede changes such as a big reduction in subsidies to the farming industry paid via the Common Agriculture Policy.
The French would never accept that, I think if we vote to leave then we will be on our way for the exit.
Leave is leave.
Anyone peddling anything else is either deluded or being disingenuous.
I know that self-praise is no praise, but I can't resist pointing out that I wrote two months ago about the increasing importance that tax and spend would play in Holyrood affairs:
I'd be interested to see the proportion of Tory MP waverers that have been convinced to stay in on the basis of Dave's deal compared to the fence sitters/neutrals that it has convinced in the general population.
The "deal" seems to have had precisely the opposite effect to that which was intended.
Nah, it's out-MPs who held fire.
They realise that "He promised a deal, it's rubbish" is a better line than "We'd have voted out anyway"
Regarding the previous thread on Stephen Pound and Rees-Mogg's comments. I know quite a few people who wouldn't date a Conservative, funnily enough. I myself would probably want to be with someone with a similar political outlook to mine as well.
Well so much for the theory that opposites attract, then...
I think in some cases it may be true. But I get the feeling most people tend to go with people who share the same interests, similar outlooks etc.
Sounds like a good way to have a boring life and never be challenged or experience new things.
The idea of not wanting to date someone based on their political inclination is something I find quite ghastly. Mind you, I wouldn't want to be with someone who was a strong political activist who pushed politics that I disliked, if only because I could see myself being in the firing line for it. But that's not unique to politics, I wouldn't want to be with a campaigner for any ideological/philosophical/religious/social cause that would likely cause ructions.
Violet Attlee was a lifelong Tory voter - and the Attlees enjoyed a long and devoted marriage (one of the reasons I find the Labour 'Never Kissed a Tory' badges so dispiriting and mean minded...)
Missed this at time but apparently the objection to the the UK having flexibility outside the single rulebook on banking in the Eurozone's banking union came up last week.
Ironically, this showed the exact dynamic we're worried about: Eurozone powers of France and Germany on one side, non-Euro UK on other, and we obviously lose the debate as we're outnumbered. That loss this time means we face the same sort of loss more and more in future.
I know that self-praise is no praise, but I can't resist pointing out that I wrote two months ago about the increasing importance that tax and spend would play in Holyrood affairs:
FWIW your piece about Osborne and pensions was also very good, and more ahead than abreast of the "mainstream media".
If only you could dumb down what you wrote, and condense it into about a third of the words, there'd ought to be space for you as a political analyst writing in the press. But since I imagine that would pay you rather less, it's nice to have you on PB.
I'd be interested to see the proportion of Tory MP waverers that have been convinced to stay in on the basis of Dave's deal compared to the fence sitters/neutrals that it has convinced in the general population.
The "deal" seems to have had precisely the opposite effect to that which was intended.
I was surprised at the apparently quick timetable for this referendum, I was working on the assumption that shifting the EU in our direction is like turning a supertanker.
Once we have voted to LEAVE then the other EU countries know the negotiations are for real and will be more prepared to concede changes such as a big reduction in subsidies to the farming industry paid via the Common Agriculture Policy.
The French would never accept that, I think if we vote to leave then we will be on our way for the exit.
Leave is Leave.
This 'vote leave to get a proper deal' is dangerously deluded nonsense.
'But they have to find a way to make that Cameron's fault rather than a recognition that Scotland is safer and more prosperous within a larger, more stable economic unit.'
I'm afraid I don't think they will find that very hard, the audience still looks very receptive.
As an EU-sceptic, but one more pro-Cameron generally than some in that group, I agree with the observation that the deal is actually worse than the status quo.
Doesn't shift my vote, of course, but does make me think Cameron's a feeble weasel.
'By far the biggest change is page 5 on protections for non-Euro economies in the finance sector. Rather than confirm that the UK can operate outside EU's single rule book for banks when Eurozone integrates, it now says that UK has to operate by the "corresponding rules" of the ECB.
So in short, it now confirms that the City of London will be completely at the mercy of rules set by the ECB'
I expect Richard N will still have that down as 'real progress'.
Dave hasn't tried to polish a turd. He has tried to polish diarrhoea and the resulting mess is disgusting to all except a few die hard party loyalists.
A truly shitty deal.
If memory serves, in 2013 Cameron set out what he said were his fundamental requirements for his renegotiation, points that would have to be met if he were to recommend the UK remain in the EU. As far as I can see he has achieved none of those points. How then am I to judge the result?
Am I to conclude that as the negotiations have failed by Cameron's own criteria I should vote to leave? Alternatively, perhaps Cameron didn't mean what he said in 2013 and he really has got a good deal and I should vote to stay. The problem with that is it means accepting that Cameron lied to me before so why in heaven's name should I trust him now?
On the whole I think I'll go with my basic instincts.
What really troubles me is that, without the "renegotiation process", had it been a straight "take it or leave it" vote that was promised, and we were now at polling day, I'd find it easier to go with my deeper gut instincts and vote Remain, however much I loathe the EU as it has become. But because voting Leave now not only endorses support for the UK in the EU, but implies support for Dave's shitty little deal, and for everything else that now gets thrown at us for years to come on the basis that "the UK only had 4 particular concerns which were all addressed in the 2016 deal and you can't have any complaints about x, y or z that you didn't negotiate changes on back then", I now find it harder to back Remain.
Dave's Deal has made things worse, not better - if that were possible!
Yes, but I think Hurst is right - it would be ridiculous to decide the future of Britain on the basis of whether we approve of the maneouvres of a politician who's about to retire either way. Vote with whatever you think is in our interests, not to reward or punish Cameron.
As a distraction from Yoon migrants' sterile and repetitive perorations, an informative, even-handed and (as is usual with Ian Jack) beautifully written piece on Trident in all its complexity.
something upsetting the primate enclosure today , they seem frenzied in their Scottish posts today. Baw face must be concerned about something to have set them off.
Majority for indy with Brent at $30 a barrel must be hard to take..
I doubt the public are fully aware of the fiscal consequences of the drop in oil prices just yet.
I know that self-praise is no praise, but I can't resist pointing out that I wrote two months ago about the increasing importance that tax and spend would play in Holyrood affairs:
I know that self-praise is no praise, but I can't resist pointing out that I wrote two months ago about the increasing importance that tax and spend would play in Holyrood affairs:
FWIW your piece about Osborne and pensions was also very good, and more ahead than abreast of the "mainstream media".
If only you could dumb down what you wrote, and condense it into about a third of the words, there'd ought to be space for you as a political analyst writing in the press. But since I imagine that would pay you rather less, it's nice to have you on PB.
I rather like that we get the grown-ups version here. With big words and everything.
Old Holborn An MP has just said Google should compensate high street shops because they lost business to the Internet.
This actually just happened
Based on a sample of one conducted first thing this morning, some members of the public are far more exercised about tax avoidance by multinationals than by the referendum on the EU. I was barely allowed to get into the bath, my ears were being pinned back on the subject for such a long time.
As a distraction from Yoon migrants' sterile and repetitive perorations, an informative, even-handed and (as is usual with Ian Jack) beautifully written piece on Trident in all its complexity.
something upsetting the primate enclosure today , they seem frenzied in their Scottish posts today. Baw face must be concerned about something to have set them off.
Majority for indy with Brent at $30 a barrel must be hard to take..
I doubt the public are fully aware of the fiscal consequences of the drop in oil prices just yet.
I wonder if atitudes to indy have changed in or around Aberdeen.
What really troubles me is that, without the "renegotiation process", had it been a straight "take it or leave it" vote that was promised, and we were now at polling day, I'd find it easier to go with my deeper gut instincts and vote Remain, however much I loathe the EU as it has become. But because voting Leave now not only endorses support for the UK in the EU, but implies support for Dave's shitty little deal, and for everything else that now gets thrown at us for years to come on the basis that "the UK only had 4 particular concerns which were all addressed in the 2016 deal and you can't have any complaints about x, y or z that you didn't negotiate changes on back then", I now find it harder to back Remain.
Dave's Deal has made things worse, not better - if that were possible!
Yes, but I think Hurst is right - it would be ridiculous to decide the future of Britain on the basis of whether we approve of the maneouvres of a politician who's about to retire either way. Vote with whatever you think is in our interests, not to reward or punish Cameron.
Sure, but the paucity of the renegotiation says something about the capability of the EU to recognise threats (and the UK leaving is clearly something of an existential threat) and respond to them accordingly.
I expect Cameron got what he could; it's the fact that so little was on offer that troubles me, given the magnitude of the decision. Of course it may simply be a case of calculation - I'm expecting politically-engaged people to swing Leave from here on in and the rest (who are, of course, more numerous) to swing Remain.
The owner of the Independent and Independent on Sunday is considering closing the national print titles and moving to a web-only operation.
Evgeny Lebedev and his top lieutenants have not yet made a final decision, however it is widely expected they will to cease printing the 30-year old newspaper, leading to significant job losses.
Missed this at time but apparently the objection to the the UK having flexibility outside the single rulebook on banking in the Eurozone's banking union came up last week.
Ironically, this showed the exact dynamic we're worried about: Eurozone powers of France and Germany on one side, non-Euro UK on other, and we obviously lose the debate as we're outnumbered. That loss this time means we face the same sort of loss more and more in future.
In the specialist financial/regulatory press it has been made perfectly clear - as if this ever needed clarifying - that the French are utterly opposed to any sort of special deal for the UK's financial services sector.
Cameron has got nothing for the UK. If Remain wins, that sector will be dependant on whatever goodwill the Eurozone may have for us and what is in their own self-interest. Cameron has utterly failed on this by his own test - and this was pointed out by quite a few of us when he first came back with his proposed deal.
The financial sector is not just banks/fund managers and the like but all the other service industries around it - law, accountants, auditors etc.
Whatever infuriates me about the EU, what infuriates me even more is the utter feebleness of British governments - of whatever political persuasion - to stand up firmly, ruthlessly, and with unerring focus for Britain's interests within the EU, in the same way that other countries do. Cameron is as pathetic as Brown with regard to this.
Regarding the previous thread on Stephen Pound and Rees-Mogg's comments. I know quite a few people who wouldn't date a Conservative, funnily enough. I myself would probably want to be with someone with a similar political outlook to mine as well.
Well so much for the theory that opposites attract, then...
I think in some cases it may be true. But I get the feeling most people tend to go with people who share the same interests, similar outlooks etc.
Sounds like a good way to have a boring life and never be challenged or experience new things.
The idea of not wanting to date someone based on their political inclination is something I find quite ghastly. Mind you, I wouldn't want to be with someone who was a strong political activist who pushed politics that I disliked, if only because I could see myself being in the firing line for it. But that's not unique to politics, I wouldn't want to be with a campaigner for any ideological/philosophical/religious/social cause that would likely cause ructions.
Violet Attlee was a lifelong Tory voter - and the Attlees enjoyed a long and devoted marriage (one of the reasons I find the Labour 'Never Kissed a Tory' badges so dispiriting and mean minded...)
Yes that's a great point. I just find the narrow-mindedness disconcerting, and particularly the "virtue-signalling" element of those badges - which suggests that Labourites who would date or even marry a Tory are somehow "not so good a Labourite as me".
I do presume Clem didn't spend his whole married life trying to nag Vi into political submission. Which I'm not sure one could get away with that with these gobby badge-wearing types.
Missed this at time but apparently the objection to the the UK having flexibility outside the single rulebook on banking in the Eurozone's banking union came up last week.
Ironically, this showed the exact dynamic we're worried about: Eurozone powers of France and Germany on one side, non-Euro UK on other, and we obviously lose the debate as we're outnumbered. That loss this time means we face the same sort of loss more and more in future.
In the specialist financial/regulatory press it has been made perfectly clear - as if this ever needed clarifying - that the French are utterly opposed to any sort of special deal for the UK's financial services sector.
Cameron has got nothing for the UK. If Remain wins, that sector will be dependant on whatever goodwill the Eurozone may have for us and what is in their own self-interest. Cameron has utterly failed on this by his own test - and this was pointed out by quite a few of us when he first came back with his proposed deal.
The financial sector is not just banks/fund managers and the like but all the other service industries around it - law, accountants, auditors etc.
Whatever infuriates me about the EU, what infuriates me even more is the utter feebleness of British governments - of whatever political persuasion - to stand up firmly, ruthlessly, and with unerring focus for Britain's interests within the EU, in the same way that other countries do. Cameron is as pathetic as Brown with regard to this.
Cameron entered EU negotiations with a team composed of Europhiles, and the Foreign Office who's heart lies in Brussels. Nothing useful would ever come of their half hearted efforts.
The owner of the Independent and Independent on Sunday is considering closing the national print titles and moving to a web-only operation.
Evgeny Lebedev and his top lieutenants have not yet made a final decision, however it is widely expected they will to cease printing the 30-year old newspaper, leading to significant job losses.
The Mail Online seemingly pitching hard to US readers (I know they have lots), since I imagine most British readers will never have heard of anyone or anything mentioned in the article, except for Sanders (if that):
The owner of the Independent and Independent on Sunday is considering closing the national print titles and moving to a web-only operation.
Evgeny Lebedev and his top lieutenants have not yet made a final decision, however it is widely expected they will to cease printing the 30-year old newspaper, leading to significant job losses.
But because voting Leave now not only endorses support for the UK in the EU, but implies support for Dave's shitty little deal, and for everything else that now gets thrown at us for years to come on the basis that "the UK only had 4 particular concerns which were all addressed in the 2016 deal and you can't have any complaints about x, y or z that you didn't negotiate changes on back then", I now find it harder to back Remain.
Dave's Deal has made things worse, not better - if that were possible!
voting Leaveendorses support for the UK in the EU ?!
The owner of the Independent and Independent on Sunday is considering closing the national print titles and moving to a web-only operation.
Evgeny Lebedev and his top lieutenants have not yet made a final decision, however it is widely expected they will to cease printing the 30-year old newspaper, leading to significant job losses.
'By far the biggest change is page 5 on protections for non-Euro economies in the finance sector. Rather than confirm that the UK can operate outside EU's single rule book for banks when Eurozone integrates, it now says that UK has to operate by the "corresponding rules" of the ECB.
So in short, it now confirms that the City of London will be completely at the mercy of rules set by the ECB'
I expect Richard N will still have that down as 'real progress'.
Morning runnymede.
I'm still looking forward to your paper on how leaving the EU and joining the EEA would provide more protection. Presumably you are labouring mightlily on this, but so far no mouse has been produced.
On this revised draft, whose is it?
Also I see that the Legal Counsel of the European Council has confirmed that the renegotiation document, if it is agreed, will be legally binding.
As a distraction from Yoon migrants' sterile and repetitive perorations, an informative, even-handed and (as is usual with Ian Jack) beautifully written piece on Trident in all its complexity.
something upsetting the primate enclosure today , they seem frenzied in their Scottish posts today. Baw face must be concerned about something to have set them off.
Majority for indy with Brent at $30 a barrel must be hard to take..
I doubt the public are fully aware of the fiscal consequences of the drop in oil prices just yet.
Stupid public, ignoring the unending stream of triumphant crowing about the fall in oil prices as the death knell of independence*. It's almost like they've completely lost trust in those pushing this view.
*For Yoon viewers, measured and concerned commentary about the economic future of Scotland.
Yes, but I think Hurst is right - it would be ridiculous to decide the future of Britain on the basis of whether we approve of the maneouvres of a politician who's about to retire either way. Vote with whatever you think is in our interests, not to reward or punish Cameron.
That wasn't my point though, Nick. I'm not bothered about punishing Cameron, in fact I don't particularly want to do that, I'm addressing the reality of what Cameron has actually now saddled us with.
The status quo is, in practical long term effect, probably better for the UK than the position of remaining after the deal has been implemented (assuming it ever is).
The owner of the Independent and Independent on Sunday is considering closing the national print titles and moving to a web-only operation.
Evgeny Lebedev and his top lieutenants have not yet made a final decision, however it is widely expected they will to cease printing the 30-year old newspaper, leading to significant job losses.
Same thought crossed my mind; once the money making element of the Independent group (i) is sold off, keeping the broadsheet going is just a very expensive self-indulgence. – The writing is on the wall for the Guardian after its sell off of AutoTrader.
Even by "Never trust the Tories on the NHS standards"
Hunt has gambled big time.
What happens when 90% of Drs refuse them??
And do what, look for work en masse in Scotland, Wales or as locums?
As someone else pointed out repeatedly yesterday, most of them are nice Middle Class people, who like stability, and will just get on with what they're doing now with a bit of grumbling. They're not going to uproot families, and give up on years of hard worked learning, and long term career goals.
The owner of the Independent and Independent on Sunday is considering closing the national print titles and moving to a web-only operation.
Evgeny Lebedev and his top lieutenants have not yet made a final decision, however it is widely expected they will to cease printing the 30-year old newspaper, leading to significant job losses.
The GMG and the Scott Trust have sufficient reserves to sustain the Guardian for quite some time
True, but there comes a point well before that that the Trust would need to consider options to sustain the operation well before it actually 'goes bust'.
Even by "Never trust the Tories on the NHS standards"
Hunt has gambled big time.
What happens when 90% of Drs refuse them??
And do what? Resign?
Changes in terms and conditions of contract not necessarily to one's liking have been absolutely standard in the private sector over the last several years. As an example a company that I am a director of, along with many other of course, closed the final salary pension scheme on the basis it was no longer affordable and went to fixed contribution instead.
1 member of staff held out and left the company. Do you think many doctors will leave the NHS?
Even by "Never trust the Tories on the NHS standards"
Hunt has gambled big time.
What happens when 90% of Drs refuse them??
They won't.
I can't believe how much political capital the Docs and BMA have wasted over this. Where were they when the terrible PFI contracts were being negotiated that will have the NHS in hoc (For years) to private contractors during the Blair/Brown years ?
Even by "Never trust the Tories on the NHS standards"
Hunt has gambled big time.
What happens when 90% of Drs refuse them??
And do what? Resign?
Changes in terms and conditions of contract not necessarily to one's liking have been absolutely standard in the private sector over the last several years. As an example a company that I am a director of, along with many other of course, closed the final salary pension scheme on the basis it was no longer affordable and went to fixed contribution instead.
1 member of staff held out and left the company. Do you think many doctors will leave the NHS?
Significant numbers will IMO.
Scotland and Wales will resolve their shortages of Drs anyway.
Even by "Never trust the Tories on the NHS standards"
Hunt has gambled big time.
What happens when 90% of Drs refuse them??
And do what? Resign?
Changes in terms and conditions of contract not necessarily to one's liking have been absolutely standard in the private sector over the last several years. As an example a company that I am a director of, along with many other of course, closed the final salary pension scheme on the basis it was no longer affordable and went to fixed contribution instead.
1 member of staff held out and left the company. Do you think many doctors will leave the NHS?
Even by "Never trust the Tories on the NHS standards"
Hunt has gambled big time.
What happens when 90% of Drs refuse them??
They won't.
I can't believe how much political capital the Docs and BMA have wasted over this. Where were they when the terrible PFI contracts were being negotiated that will have the NHS in hoc (For years) to private contractors during the Blair/Brown years ?
The "we will all resign and go and work somewhere else" thing is a standard tactic.
"The majority of family doctors in the UK are ready to resign unless they get new contracts to cut paperwork and give them extra time with their patients. Doctors' leaders said simply: "They have had enough."
Even by "Never trust the Tories on the NHS standards"
Hunt has gambled big time.
What happens when 90% of Drs refuse them??
And do what, look for work en masse in Scotland, Wales or as locums?
As someone else pointed out repeatedly yesterday, most of them are nice Middle Class people, who like stability, and will just get on with what they're doing now with a bit of grumbling. They're not going to uproot families, and give up on years of hard worked learning, and long term career goals.
Lets see.
And do what, look for work en masse in Scotland, Wales or as locums?
Comments
Now we've got 'can we keep the deal where you've been ripping us off for decades instead of keeping our own money?'
Or a foreign operator? Burghfield and Aldermaston remain staffed by Brits, as do Lockheed and Serco's UK operations. In the same way that defence businesses in the US, owned by British companies have native employees.
The United States uses national security as a cover for protectionism, hidden subsidies, and actual national security. HMG (and HMO) should look and learn.
Old vs. young: how voters are split on Zac Goldsmith and Labour’s Sadiq Khan https://t.co/HuSc2Ov9Yj https://t.co/bzuXXBhtQ8
Am I to conclude that as the negotiations have failed by Cameron's own criteria I should vote to leave? Alternatively, perhaps Cameron didn't mean what he said in 2013 and he really has got a good deal and I should vote to stay. The problem with that is it means accepting that Cameron lied to me before so why in heaven's name should I trust him now?
On the whole I think I'll go with my basic instincts.
Polls point to people voting for magic beans when there is no vote scheduled.
Or just the usual splenetic incoherence?
It will be turned down and May will show that people know exactly who is to blame.
Just a pity that the level of discussion on here , yourself excepted , is so pathetic and ignorant. You must be embarrassed to be associated with the Tories on here, a thouroughly odious group indeed and shows why the Tories are so reviled in Scotland even by people with Tory viewpoints.
Good to know that there is at least one Tory with some humanity in the UK.
Along with the comic strip, "MalkyG, he'll drink wi' ye".
FFA
Fiscal Devolution
Tax raising powers we won't use
All ruses by the SNP that would beggar Scotland
Now, cling to Barnett. The SNP are an embarrassment to Scotland
Dave's Deal has made things worse, not better - if that were possible!
***Cameron will be FORCED to debate Salmond***
***Indy will WIN****
***Cameron will lose***
And others too numerous to mention.....
I had been worried, but you've put my mind at ease.....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-05/two-track-banking-rules-in-eu-cameron-deal-meet-with-skepticism
Ironically, this showed the exact dynamic we're worried about: Eurozone powers of France and Germany on one side, non-Euro UK on other, and we obviously lose the debate as we're outnumbered. That loss this time means we face the same sort of loss more and more in future.
There's me as well..... :-)
The answers if queried just won't match up to the truth.
Please explain.
We should all vote LEAVE so that serious negotiations take place over substantive reforms to the EU instead of the sham of negotiations so far.
Cameron could not put forward serious changes up to now because the other EU countries know he wasn't serious about leaving the EU.
Once we have voted to LEAVE then the other EU countries know the negotiations are for real and will be more prepared to concede changes such as a big reduction in subsidies to the farming industry paid via the Common Agriculture Policy.
What you don't seem able to grasp is that 'taking billions off the rUK budget' is also a detriment - it cuts both ways.
And 'no detriment' applies at the start but is not an eternal 'Heads Scotland wins, Tails England loses' guarantee.
There ARE demographic challenges Scotland faces - an older population, which also dies younger (consider that for a moment...) - and there need to be ways of recognising that - but the principle of 'you make your bed, you lie in it' has to be part of the deal too.
The idea of not wanting to date someone based on their political inclination is something I find quite ghastly. Mind you, I wouldn't want to be with someone who was a strong political activist who pushed politics that I disliked, if only because I could see myself being in the firing line for it. But that's not unique to politics, I wouldn't want to be with a campaigner for any ideological/philosophical/religious/social cause that would likely cause ructions.
For most people, politics (if it crosses their minds at all) is something that goes on in the background rather than a core part of their identity, and is, over the years, subject to change. It's also, except for the hardcore, quite personal and generally private, which is how my parents got along for so long without knowing how each other voted.
I wonder how may folk thought they'd never marry a Tory, yet when they were in their 50s found their partner (or even themselves) had magically transmogrified into one?
For now I must away to the early summer of 1940 and the discussions about forming the Polish Air Force (in exile) and the mysteries of No. 3 School of Technical Training in Blackpool.
Thanks one and all for more interesting discussion this morning. Play nicely.
Anyone peddling anything else is either deluded or being disingenuous.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/12/10/turning-on-taxes-the-tectonic-plates-of-scotlands-politics-are-moving/
Chance of being a victim of violence in Eng/Wales DOWN significantly in 20 years. 4.8% of adults in 1995. 1.8% in 2015. @ONS
They realise that "He promised a deal, it's rubbish" is a better line than "We'd have voted out anyway"
"Oh sod it, let's just leave...."
If only you could dumb down what you wrote, and condense it into about a third of the words, there'd ought to be space for you as a political analyst writing in the press. But since I imagine that would pay you rather less, it's nice to have you on PB.
Leave is Leave.
This 'vote leave to get a proper deal' is dangerously deluded nonsense.
I'm afraid I don't think they will find that very hard, the audience still looks very receptive.
Doesn't shift my vote, of course, but does make me think Cameron's a feeble weasel.
Old Holborn
An MP has just said Google should compensate high street shops because they lost business to the Internet.
This actually just happened
And it's free....
Who was the MP?
I expect Cameron got what he could; it's the fact that so little was on offer that troubles me, given the magnitude of the decision. Of course it may simply be a case of calculation - I'm expecting politically-engaged people to swing Leave from here on in and the rest (who are, of course, more numerous) to swing Remain.
Evgeny Lebedev and his top lieutenants have not yet made a final decision, however it is widely expected they will to cease printing the 30-year old newspaper, leading to significant job losses.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/11/independent-owner-considering-closing-national-print-titles?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Silly Boy
Cameron has got nothing for the UK. If Remain wins, that sector will be dependant on whatever goodwill the Eurozone may have for us and what is in their own self-interest. Cameron has utterly failed on this by his own test - and this was pointed out by quite a few of us when he first came back with his proposed deal.
The financial sector is not just banks/fund managers and the like but all the other service industries around it - law, accountants, auditors etc.
Whatever infuriates me about the EU, what infuriates me even more is the utter feebleness of British governments - of whatever political persuasion - to stand up firmly, ruthlessly, and with unerring focus for Britain's interests within the EU, in the same way that other countries do. Cameron is as pathetic as Brown with regard to this.
I do presume Clem didn't spend his whole married life trying to nag Vi into political submission. Which I'm not sure one could get away with that with these gobby badge-wearing types.
To Africa.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3440536/Bernie-Sanders-meets-Al-Sharpton-breakfast-Harlem-decisive-win-New-Hampshire-primary-hours-Reverend-sits-Hillary-Clinton.html
However he appears not to know how to resolve that with 2 simple words.
"I resign"
Hopefully that was obvious though!
I'm still looking forward to your paper on how leaving the EU and joining the EEA would provide more protection. Presumably you are labouring mightlily on this, but so far no mouse has been produced.
On this revised draft, whose is it?
Also I see that the Legal Counsel of the European Council has confirmed that the renegotiation document, if it is agreed, will be legally binding.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/european-scrutiny/0413_001.pdf
*For Yoon viewers, measured and concerned commentary about the economic future of Scotland.
The status quo is, in practical long term effect, probably better for the UK than the position of remaining after the deal has been implemented (assuming it ever is).
#Italy's stock market has lost more than a quarter of its value this year. It's Feb. 11. https://t.co/1nFMHsZGNG https://t.co/uBBW2cWHxi
Hunt has gambled big time.
What happens when 90% of Drs refuse them??
That's a good sign. I heart Ken Clarke
As someone else pointed out repeatedly yesterday, most of them are nice Middle Class people, who like stability, and will just get on with what they're doing now with a bit of grumbling. They're not going to uproot families, and give up on years of hard worked learning, and long term career goals.
Changes in terms and conditions of contract not necessarily to one's liking have been absolutely standard in the private sector over the last several years. As an example a company that I am a director of, along with many other of course, closed the final salary pension scheme on the basis it was no longer affordable and went to fixed contribution instead.
1 member of staff held out and left the company. Do you think many doctors will leave the NHS?
I can't believe how much political capital the Docs and BMA have wasted over this. Where were they when the terrible PFI contracts were being negotiated that will have the NHS in hoc (For years) to private contractors during the Blair/Brown years ?
Scotland and Wales will resolve their shortages of Drs anyway.
The NHS cannot afford to lose any Drs not even 1%
eg 2001.
http://news.sky.com/story/37044/doctors-threaten-mass-walk-out
"The majority of family doctors in the UK are ready to resign unless they get new contracts to cut paperwork and give them extra time with their patients. Doctors' leaders said simply: "They have had enough."
or 1999
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/271514.stm
"GPs are threatening to resign en masse because of overwork, patients' unrealistic expectations and a fall in recruitment.
Half of Portsmouth's GPs have written to the government warning that doctors are so overworked that some are taking to drink and drugs. "
I have no idea what happened when their bluff has been called, if ever.
And do what, look for work en masse in Scotland, Wales or as locums?
Possible that significant numbers will.
I'm not aware where that information is available.