I don't see how the Nats could call a referendum during that time, as they would not know what kind of UK they were leaving or what kind of EU they might be joining.
I agree, but once again the Zoomers are trapped by their own rhetoric
They claimed last time they could be done and dusted in 18 months. So were they lying? (Well, yes of course, but they don't want to have to admit it)
Conversely they are helped by their current stance that "Scottish voters are too stupid" to vote twice in 6 weeks...
So this does appear to be unscheduled, and like I say, OFSTED usually decides the outcome of these inspections in advance for purely PR reasons.
If there was any justice they should have a hard time explaining their sudden volte-face - but they won't.
Oh, it was definitely unscheduled. That's been reported widely. OFSTED went in unannounced and uninvited.
Probably a parental complaint. However for safeguarding/security reasons they should not have turned up unannounced unless it was only a paperwork inspection, which seems unlikely.
That's silly. Ofsted should, on production of appropriate documentation, be able to carry out genuinely unannounced inspections - as in "we're here and it starts within ten minutes." They can have time to validate that the inspectors are who they are but that's all.
I'm not saying that all inspections should be like that but it should be a tool in the box to be used if necessary, for example in cases where it's suspected that previous inspections have involved serious cover-ups.
Don't tell me that David. Tell the people who drew up the regulations on who is and isn't allowed on site without basic background checks. As inspectors do not have demonstrable connections with the school, we have to run security checks if they are to meet children. If they're coming to look at the paperwork and talk to the Head, different rules apply there.
I think the assumption is that nobody is out to groom/molest/indoctrinate banking staff, so inspectors can arrive when they like.
EDIT - of course I say that but even that's not foolproof. A few years ago an OFSTED team was thrown out of an FE college in Newcastle because one of them put his hand up a girl's skirt. However, in fairness to OFSTED such incidents are very rare and rapidly dealt with.
Strictly speaking, a Russian attack against Turkey from Syria isn't covered by Article 5. From the NATO website:
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Asia Minor is not "in Europe or North America".
In what may be the oddest intervention ever on this board, the Unfair Contracts Act does not permit contracts that can never be triggered.
This would contradict your argument that (because Turkey is not in Europe nor North America) an attack on it isn't covered
Given where we are in the electoral cycle the govt is doing remarkably well in the polling. Don't you understand politics?
I think that's entirely due to Labour's ructions - regardless of who is to blame, it's obvious that Labour has to sort itself out before floating voters will consider them. However, it is dangerous for the Tories to assume that that will never happen over the next 4 years, and if they've got used to thinking that they can get away with anything, it will be tricky to recover credibility if it does.
Indeed but my pint is that the early years of a govt are all bout the hard stuff. In the Coalition at this stage Labour had good leads. Also the issues at the moment are not of such a degree as to warrant panic at the top.
I don't see how the Nats could call a referendum during that time, as they would not know what kind of UK they were leaving or what kind of EU they might be joining.
I agree, but once again the Zoomers are trapped by their own rhetoric
They claimed last time they could be done and dusted in 18 months. So were they lying? (Well, yes of course, but they don't want to have to admit it)
Conversely they are helped by their current stance that "Scottish voters are too stupid" to vote twice in 6 weeks...
The legal stuff surrounding Brexit, and discussed in that essay, makes quite depressing reading for sceptics. I don't know why REMAINIANS aren't making more of it.
The Lisbon Treaty is specifically written so as to make Quitting the EU as unpleasant and tedious as possible, and it gives the EU all the cards. It is engineered that way.
I despise the idiots who signed us up for Lisbon - yes, you, Labour - but it is what it is. By itself, this issue has shunted me back towards a very very reluctant REMAIN. Maybe.
See here. I don't agree with all these points (I reckon the UK would have more bargaining power than the writer allows), but it is still sobering stuff.
So this does appear to be unscheduled, and like I say, OFSTED usually decides the outcome of these inspections in advance for purely PR reasons.
If there was any justice they should have a hard time explaining their sudden volte-face - but they won't.
Oh, it was definitely unscheduled. That's been reported widely. OFSTED went in unannounced and uninvited.
Probably a parental complaint. However for safeguarding/security reasons they should not have turned up unannounced unless it was only a paperwork inspection, which seems unlikely.
That's silly. Ofsted should, on production of appropriate documentation, be able to carry out genuinely unannounced inspections - as in "we're here and it starts within ten minutes." They can have time to validate that the inspectors are who they are but that's all.
I'm not saying that all inspections should be like that but it should be a tool in the box to be used if necessary, for example in cases where it's suspected that previous inspections have involved serious cover-ups.
Don't tell me that David. Tell the people who drew up the regulations on who is and isn't allowed on site without basic background checks. As inspectors do not have demonstrable connections with the school, we have to run security checks if they are to meet children. If they're coming to look at the paperwork and talk to the Head, different rules apply there.
I think the assumption is that nobody is out to groom/molest/indoctrinate banking staff, so inspectors can arrive when they like.
Even in the modern world, it is probably no beyond the whit of man to carry out enhanced CRB checks on School Inspectors at regular intervals. Pre-check them, as it were.
But that isn't the real problem, of course.
Gove tried to move to un-announce inspections. The idea was to actually reduce stress* and "gun decking"**
Of course this was denounced as satanic.
* Announced inspections cause massive stress and chaos in schools - a headteacher I knew basically worked herself into ground (medical time off) preparing ** Old Royal Navy term for hiding stuff the inspecting Admiral wasn't supposed to see below decks...
Labour candidate for Ogmore by-election in Chris Elmore. Vale of Glamorgan Cllr and 2015 GE there. He stood for NPF last year in the Labour First slate.
I don't see how the Nats could call a referendum during that time, as they would not know what kind of UK they were leaving or what kind of EU they might be joining.
I agree, but once again the Zoomers are trapped by their own rhetoric
They claimed last time they could be done and dusted in 18 months. So were they lying? (Well, yes of course, but they don't want to have to admit it)
Conversely they are helped by their current stance that "Scottish voters are too stupid" to vote twice in 6 weeks...
The legal stuff surrounding Brexit, and discussed in that essay, makes quite depressing reading for sceptics. I don't know why REMAINIANS aren't making more of it.
The Lisbon Treaty is specifically written so as to make Quitting the EU as unpleasant and tedious as possible, and it gives the EU all the cards. It is engineered that way.
I despise the idiots who signed us up for Lisbon - yes, you, Labour - but it is what it is. By itself, this issue has shunted me back towards a very very reluctant REMAIN. Maybe.
See here. I don't agree with all these points (I reckon the UK would have more bargaining power than the writer allows), but it is still sobering stuff.
So you have hung up your morals on expediency - FUD tacticians will be please.
I said I'm still havering, I was an almost-convinced LEAVER til a few days ago. There's no denying that Brexit is much more complicated - legally - than sceptics are acknowledging. Because of Lisbon.
In so many ways, Lisbon was the great betrayal. That's when we lost our vetoes on finance etc. If we could go back to a pre-Lisbon EU I'd be content.
But now? I really do not know. Genuinely undecided.
IMO its an Alien vs Predator decision. Leave and all the mess, stay and it isn't that we are "freezing" further integration with Europe, we are simply slowing it down.
On the other hand it would to diverting to watch Erdogan, Assad, the Saudis, Iran and ISIS all beating each other to death. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
As long as the Russians and Assad are sensible and don't attack across the Turkish border in any way. If they do then Turkey can call on NATO and an attack on a member is a pretty big red line to let them cross without response.
I don't believe NATO would go to war with Russia to defend Turkey's borders. Just can't see it.
They would have no choice. To fail to do so would be in breach of the NATO treaty and would cause outrage in Poland and the Baltic States.
That would depend on the circumstances. NATO is bound by collective defence, not the need to support the adventurism of any member.
You're right that the Baltic States would get twitchy in those circumstances but that would have to be handled.
Which is why the Turkish border matters. Turkish troops in Syria are fair game for Russia, Russian troops in Turkey would be a declaration of war.
It would be no concern of mine, and I have no doubt I speak for the overwhelming majority of people in this country.
It doesn't matter, Turkey is a NATO member. Art 5 is completely paramount. NATO is dead if it is not reacted to.
Strictly speaking, a Russian attack against Turkey from Syria isn't covered by Article 5. From the NATO website:
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Asia Minor is not "in Europe or North America".
Comment Does it depend where you draw the line Europe/Asia Minor? Isn't the bit of Turkey west of the Dardanelles actually in Europe?
Strictly speaking, a Russian attack against Turkey from Syria isn't covered by Article 5. From the NATO website:
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Asia Minor is not "in Europe or North America".
In what may be the oddest intervention ever on this board, the Unfair Contracts Act does not permit contracts that can never be triggered.
This would contradict your argument that (because Turkey is not in Europe nor North America) an attack on it isn't covered
Istanbul is in Europe. Turkey across the Bosphorus isn't. They must have known this when they signed.
Strictly speaking, a Russian attack against Turkey from Syria isn't covered by Article 5. From the NATO website:
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Asia Minor is not "in Europe or North America".
In what may be the oddest intervention ever on this board, the Unfair Contracts Act does not permit contracts that can never be triggered.
This would contradict your argument that (because Turkey is not in Europe nor North America) an attack on it isn't covered
Istanbul is in Europe. Turkey across the Bosphorus isn't. They must have known this when they signed.
I find it difficult to believe that either party intended to omit non-Europe Turkey
Malcolm, the impression given to those in England (or further afield) is that the Scottish Government want to take all the credit for spending money without the inconvenience of needing to raise it through taxes.
Would they be happy, for example, to use a baseline of the year before the referendum (2013-14) as the basis for dividing expenditure from the UK to Scotland? Because that is what they were arguing for 18 months ago.
Now that tax revenues raised in Scotland have dropped off a cliff (as much to do with income tax at higher rates as direct o&g taxes) they want the UK government ("Westminster", "England", delete as appropriate) to increase the amount of money sent to Scotland, but for only Scotland to additionally benefit from any future increase in oil prices and related taxation.
Well guess what, the rest of the UK don't see this as a good deal, and are calling you out on your 180 degree turn inside the 18 months since the referendum.
It has nothing to do with that, we are talking about everything except income tax and it has to be at "No Detriment" to Scotland. Westminster want to transfer nothing and have Scotland take all the risks based on income tax alone. Try to at least understand the basics before commenting.
Sanpit , tried to edit this, I appreciate you will most likely only be seeing the Tory propaganda view on the topic and so your position would seem reasonable. They are lying toerags and will pay for their perfidy.
I think I fixed the quote tags.
Honest question, what perfidy?
In the aftermath of the referendum the SNP were over the moon with the promise of new powers, but now they seem not to want them.
It is a reasonable assumption income that taxes raised in Scotland are falling as the O&G sector make redundancies of higher rate taxpayers. Yet rather than deal with the fact that this means spending cuts or tax rises are needed, they prefer to critisise British politicians for offering them pretty much the deal they wanted a little over a year ago.
What additional powers would you wish to see devolved, given that the central question of independence decided for the short term future?
Sandpit , income tax is fine, but remainder of budget should stay on exactly same deal as we have just now. For me I would like to see full fiscal powers transferred, absolutely everything.
rather than deal with the fact that this means spending cuts or tax rises are needed, they prefer to critisise British politicians for offering them pretty much the deal they wanted a little over a year ago.
The next 5 years are going to be entertaining to observe
"So Nicola, what are you going to do?"
"Umm, mumble, Westminster, mumble, winnae let me..."
"OK, Indyref2 then! Free us from the yoke!"
"Err, naw."
Scott is just a dunderheid, he is unable to understand anything that he cannot count on his eleven fingers. They are not being offered the deal that was on the table, Westminster want to cut the remainder of the Barnett formula by a large amount over coming years. That was not the deal it was to be "No Detriment", if they want that then they need to transfer all powers.
Comments
They claimed last time they could be done and dusted in 18 months. So were they lying? (Well, yes of course, but they don't want to have to admit it)
Conversely they are helped by their current stance that "Scottish voters are too stupid" to vote twice in 6 weeks...
I think the assumption is that nobody is out to groom/molest/indoctrinate banking staff, so inspectors can arrive when they like.
EDIT - of course I say that but even that's not foolproof. A few years ago an OFSTED team was thrown out of an FE college in Newcastle because one of them put his hand up a girl's skirt. However, in fairness to OFSTED such incidents are very rare and rapidly dealt with.
This would contradict your argument that (because Turkey is not in Europe nor North America) an attack on it isn't covered
But that isn't the real problem, of course.
Gove tried to move to un-announce inspections. The idea was to actually reduce stress* and "gun decking"**
Of course this was denounced as satanic.
* Announced inspections cause massive stress and chaos in schools - a headteacher I knew basically worked herself into ground (medical time off) preparing
** Old Royal Navy term for hiding stuff the inspecting Admiral wasn't supposed to see below decks...
@Maomentum_: Corbyn CAN win by channelling the anger of all the people who voted Tory at the last election. https://t.co/Yd6o1nQQAb
new thread
Dangerous times.
On the other hand it would to diverting to watch Erdogan, Assad, the Saudis, Iran and ISIS all beating each other to death. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
As long as the Russians and Assad are sensible and don't attack across the Turkish border in any way. If they do then Turkey can call on NATO and an attack on a member is a pretty big red line to let them cross without response.
I don't believe NATO would go to war with Russia to defend Turkey's borders. Just can't see it.
They would have no choice. To fail to do so would be in breach of the NATO treaty and would cause outrage in Poland and the Baltic States.
That would depend on the circumstances. NATO is bound by collective defence, not the need to support the adventurism of any member.
You're right that the Baltic States would get twitchy in those circumstances but that would have to be handled.
Which is why the Turkish border matters. Turkish troops in Syria are fair game for Russia, Russian troops in Turkey would be a declaration of war.
It would be no concern of mine, and I have no doubt I speak for the overwhelming majority of people in this country.
It doesn't matter, Turkey is a NATO member. Art 5 is completely paramount. NATO is dead if it is not reacted to.
Strictly speaking, a Russian attack against Turkey from Syria isn't covered by Article 5. From the NATO website:
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Asia Minor is not "in Europe or North America".
Comment Does it depend where you draw the line Europe/Asia Minor? Isn't the bit of Turkey west of the Dardanelles actually in Europe?
For me I would like to see full fiscal powers transferred, absolutely everything.
They are not being offered the deal that was on the table, Westminster want to cut the remainder of the Barnett formula by a large amount over coming years. That was not the deal it was to be "No Detriment", if they want that then they need to transfer all powers.