'But the press is still largely free, and the Democratic Alliance has managed to consolidate power around the Cape, and there is real pluralism down there.'
The problem is, it was when a genuine alternative to Mugabe-ism emerged in Zimbabwe that the real trouble started.
The other big concern is the increasingly poor performance of the economy; nothing like Zimbabwe yet of course but stagnation will increase the danger of populist and confiscational policies.
I agree with that.
And the ongoing commodity down cycle will continue to weigh very heavily on the South African economy. It could all go horribly wrong.
I wonder if the Cape would declare independence in the event of a disintegration of South Africa
I suspect the aspiration for trains to run at 250 mph came about to help make the business case for the project. Personally I would pull the plug on it.
The thing you need to bear in mind is that in 30 years, the need for HS2 will be unarguable. As with Crossrail and the Thameslink programme, "cancelling" it will merely put it on ice until it's desperately needed - and then we'll have to wait 20 years for it to be built.
I think adding new capacity is unarguable. We are never given alternatives. It is either HS2 or nothing ? Like it is Trident or nothing. I am pro-nuclear weapon and the N-button but not convinced that the only way to achieve that is to spend £100bn and rising on that.
Same with HS2.
I agree. We need trains that stop at intermediate stations and interchange with other lines, new lines quite certainly, but HS2? I am unconvinced. With increased speed come increased fuel consumption and increased engineering demand. In a compact country like ours is more than 100 mph needed?
In a message to the Scottish electorate, she said: “patiently and respectfully, we will seek to convince you that independence really does offer the best future for Scotland
Firstly Khan will win the London mayoralty so no matter how poor the results elsewhere Corbyn will have done something Brown and Miliband did not and thus remain leader for now. Second even if there were a leadership election most voters, including Labour ones, will not obsessively be following every twist and turn and will be quite capable of taking themselves to the polling station
In a message to the Scottish electorate, she said: “patiently and respectfully, we will seek to convince you that independence really does offer the best future for Scotland
I suspect the aspiration for trains to run at 250 mph came about to help make the business case for the project. Personally I would pull the plug on it.
The thing you need to bear in mind is that in 30 years, the need for HS2 will be unarguable. As with Crossrail and the Thameslink programme, "cancelling" it will merely put it on ice until it's desperately needed - and then we'll have to wait 20 years for it to be built.
I think adding new capacity is unarguable. We are never given alternatives. It is either HS2 or nothing ?
Well, you could build another Victorian style line, but I'm not sure why you would want to.
I'm thinking that if the Tory government decides in a year or two to for example cut the top rate of tax back to 40% from 45% then the SNP would face an awkward choice: keep their tax rates high and see a flight of taxes from Holyrood to Westminster (just like Westminster has received a flight of French taxes) - or continue their practice of being Yellow Tories and cut the tax rate themselves.
I expect they'd opt to be Yellow Tories and cut the tax themselves too.
Nicola is 1) complaining but 2) pointing out how mobile these tax payers are:
But Ms Sturgeon has played down Labour’s call to increase the rate for the highest earners – on more than £150,000 – from 45p to 50p.
The First Minister said fewer than 20,000 Scots earn this amount. She added: “These are some of the most mobile people in the country and it wouldn’t take very many of them to shift their outcome out of Scotland for us not to raise money through that but to lose revenue.”
It's this kind ofthing that, I reckon, could see a revival of Scots Lab. Now that the Nats are in charge of Scotland's finances, to a greater extent (even though the Tories gave them a ridiculously generous fiscal deal) they will reveal more of their true colours - and I suspect those colours will be Tartan Tory more than Clydeside Red.
This opens up a flank for the beleaguered Scottish Labourites to attack.
They are not in charge of the finances, it is all still controlled from London. They have just shuffled how the pocket money is allocated and cut it at the same time.
‘Let me be blunt,’ I was told by one senior civil servant. ‘The Home Secretary doesn’t want a fully functioning system of entry and exit checks. She thinks it would only highlight the ineffectiveness of the Border Agency and the Home Office and their inability to identify and then eject over-stayers. Theresa May is saying that entry and exit checks would be expensive and embarrassing and would distract attention from tackling serious criminals and terrorism.’ This seemed to explain why month after month there was no real action in getting the system of entry and exit checks in place.
Well, thats May's chances of being next Tory leader well and truly over.
In other words, if the public knew how utterly awash the borders were, it might make them more focused on that as a source of insecurity instead of the lack of snooping powers. What an awful Home Secretary.
I suspect the aspiration for trains to run at 250 mph came about to help make the business case for the project. Personally I would pull the plug on it.
The thing you need to bear in mind is that in 30 years, the need for HS2 will be unarguable. As with Crossrail and the Thameslink programme, "cancelling" it will merely put it on ice until it's desperately needed - and then we'll have to wait 20 years for it to be built.
I think adding new capacity is unarguable. We are never given alternatives. It is either HS2 or nothing ?
Well, you could build another Victorian style line, but I'm not sure why you would want to.
You mean one where passengers can get on and off at intermediate stations and interchange with other lines? One suitable to commuters?
Why would we want that when we could have a white elephant?
I suspect the aspiration for trains to run at 250 mph came about to help make the business case for the project. Personally I would pull the plug on it.
The thing you need to bear in mind is that in 30 years, the need for HS2 will be unarguable. As with Crossrail and the Thameslink programme, "cancelling" it will merely put it on ice until it's desperately needed - and then we'll have to wait 20 years for it to be built.
I think adding new capacity is unarguable. We are never given alternatives. It is either HS2 or nothing ? Like it is Trident or nothing. I am pro-nuclear weapon and the N-button but not convinced that the only way to achieve that is to spend £100bn and rising on that.
Same with HS2.
I agree. We need trains that stop at intermediate stations and interchange with other lines, new lines quite certainly, but HS2? I am unconvinced. With increased speed come increased fuel consumption and increased engineering demand. In a compact country like ours is more than 100 mph needed?
As a matter of interest, have you ever been on HS1?
At some point independence will happen and then we will see a complete change in the politics / parties etc. Tories and Labour will not recover till they are Scottish parties and not just a menial sub office of the London parties. The genie is out of the bottle, unless UK gets rich and untold cash is sent northward instead of constant budget cuts. I do agree with your first point though and am not under any illusion that the SNP are a panacea for all ills.
Malcolm, if I may ask, are you a Leaver or a Remainer?
I am Leave against the lying toad Cameron. He is a slimeball , has gained nothing and can only try to scare people with ever growing whoppers.
'I wonder if the Cape would declare independence in the event of a disintegration of South Africa.'
A very interesting scenario, which would make quite a lot of sense as a long-term move an given the stark differences between the Cape and the rest of SA (whether it would include northern Cape as well is an interesting question).
Doubtless in such a scenario it would act as a safe haven for those who felt uncomfortable in the rump SA as well - a kind of reverse Great Trek might occur. Some of the many Saffers in the UK might return to a well-run Cape Republic as well...
Just read an article in the Observer by Alastair Campbell accusing the press of being dishonest re the EU. I do hope he's wheeled out to bat for Remain, I'd love to see the Tory Remainers cheering for him.
Re the thread header, its a different slant on what I've been saying for ages, Labour simply aren't bothered about the EU, its that apathy that will win it for Leave. Over 500 street stalls yesterday, thousands of campaigners, Leave are indisputably more motivated.
Really? I was out in the High Street yesterday and Britain Stronger in Europe were leafletting hard, many of their leafletters local Tories never mind Labour. I have yet to receive a single leaflet or email from Leave, I have had both from Remain
I suspect the aspiration for trains to run at 250 mph came about to help make the business case for the project. Personally I would pull the plug on it.
The thing you need to bear in mind is that in 30 years, the need for HS2 will be unarguable. As with Crossrail and the Thameslink programme, "cancelling" it will merely put it on ice until it's desperately needed - and then we'll have to wait 20 years for it to be built.
I think adding new capacity is unarguable. We are never given alternatives. It is either HS2 or nothing ?
Well, you could build another Victorian style line, but I'm not sure why you would want to.
You mean one where passengers can get on and off at intermediate stations and interchange with other lines? One suitable to commuters?
We already have one of those. Because of the lack of capacity the intermediate stations don't have enough trains stopping.
Build a modern line for the long distance passengers and free up capacity on the old line. Not rocket science.
In a message to the Scottish electorate, she said: “patiently and respectfully, we will seek to convince you that independence really does offer the best future for Scotland
You Tory unionists just cannot help lying and smearing, despicable creatures.
Thank you for proving my point.
You'll have read the GERS figures then?
Who was lying?
And so much for 'once in a generation'
Who was lying?
It is the UK that has been running the country , they have caused the deficit, nothing in that failure means that an independent Scotland would commit the same mistakes and make such a hash of running the country. You do not appear to realise that we are not independent and do not have any control of the UK budget. Come back 5 or 10 years after independence and you can gloat then , till then try to think how the UK government be so absolute crap that they have got Scotland into such a hole. How is London going to turn things round , can you tell me.
Re Border checks..I travel through UK airports fairly regularly and the procedure seems fairly tight to me..It is quite common to see some people removed discreetly from the the queue and taken to another place for further checks..the process is carried out calmly..
@iainmartin1: Sturgeon defence to @afneil is independence black hole wld have been equivalent to impact of financial catastrophe of 2008. So that's ok.
Real value add from the site twatter. Do you ever have an original thought.
I suspect the aspiration for trains to run at 250 mph came about to help make the business case for the project. Personally I would pull the plug on it.
The thing you need to bear in mind is that in 30 years, the need for HS2 will be unarguable. As with Crossrail and the Thameslink programme, "cancelling" it will merely put it on ice until it's desperately needed - and then we'll have to wait 20 years for it to be built.
So it's an essential project being badly implemented.... The question is how do you sell the project in a way that people will buy into it today...
Personally I'm not so sure its as required now as it was 10 years ago. If cars get to the point that they can drive themselves why would you want the train for a long distance journey unless you really needed to be in the city centre....
*If* cars get to that point, you will need to consider the use-cases for such cars. I doubt they'll be used in the way many of the casual proponents think - i.e. in the way we use cars at the moment. It may not prove as disruptive a technology as many people think, even if it fulfils its promise.
The current self-drive car schemes are very much smoke and mirrors. Lots of great, promising tech being used in very limited circumstances. I personally don't think we'll get them as 'good' as cars driven by a good, alert human driver without the tech being AI-complete, especially for good object recognition. And we haven't developed anything AI-complete yet.
In the meantime, the need for moving large volumes of people point-to-point is proving increasingly necessary, as can be seen from the rise in passenger numbers. Not doing what is needed because there *may* be disruptive technology sometime in the future is not good planning.
Re Border checks..I travel through UK airports fairly regularly and the procedure seems fairly tight to me..It is quite common to see some people removed discreetly from the the queue and taken to another place for further checks..the process is carried out calmly..
Question is how do so many illegals get through. We spend billions on it , must be something wrong somewhere. Must be coming in by boats or lorries etc
At some point independence will happen and then we will see a complete change in the politics / parties etc. Tories and Labour will not recover till they are Scottish parties and not just a menial sub office of the London parties. The genie is out of the bottle, unless UK gets rich and untold cash is sent northward instead of constant budget cuts. I do agree with your first point though and am not under any illusion that the SNP are a panacea for all ills.
Malcolm, if I may ask, are you a Leaver or a Remainer?
I am Leave against the lying toad Cameron. He is a slimeball , has gained nothing and can only try to scare people with ever growing whoppers.
In a message to the Scottish electorate, she said: “patiently and respectfully, we will seek to convince you that independence really does offer the best future for Scotland
You Tory unionists just cannot help lying and smearing, despicable creatures.
Thank you for proving my point.
You'll have read the GERS figures then?
Who was lying?
And so much for 'once in a generation'
Who was lying?
It is the UK that has been running the country , they have caused the deficit, nothing in that failure means that an independent Scotland would commit the same mistakes and make such a hash of running the country. You do not appear to realise that we are not independent and do not have any control of the UK budget. Come back 5 or 10 years after independence and you can gloat then , till then try to think how the UK government be so absolute crap that they have got Scotland into such a hole. How is London going to turn things round , can you tell me.
An independent Scotland would inherit that deficit even if it had no debt (which it would). The simple fact is that Scotland spends more than it raises. And now the oil price has collapsed it spends a lot more than it raises. That's where the country would begin from when separation occurs. And there'd be no redistribution from the south anymore.
It would seem all of Scotlands problems are caused by someone else...Pathetic
Maybe its the EU forcing London to make all those crap decisions. London contol the finances you halfwitted cretinous dunderheided moron. Send me your bankbook and I will decide what your money is spent on , lets then see how long you are happy with the arrangement.
I suspect the aspiration for trains to run at 250 mph came about to help make the business case for the project. Personally I would pull the plug on it.
The thing you need to bear in mind is that in 30 years, the need for HS2 will be unarguable. As with Crossrail and the Thameslink programme, "cancelling" it will merely put it on ice until it's desperately needed - and then we'll have to wait 20 years for it to be built.
So it's an essential project being badly implemented.... The question is how do you sell the project in a way that people will buy into it today...
Personally I'm not so sure its as required now as it was 10 years ago. If cars get to the point that they can drive themselves why would you want the train for a long distance journey unless you really needed to be in the city centre....
*If* cars get to that point, you will need to consider the use-cases for such cars. I doubt they'll be used in the way many of the casual proponents think - i.e. in the way we use cars at the moment. It may not prove as disruptive a technology as many people think, even if it fulfils its promise.
The current self-drive car schemes are very much smoke and mirrors. Lots of great, promising tech being used in very limited circumstances. I personally don't think we'll get them as 'good' as cars driven by a good, alert human driver without the tech being AI-complete, especially for good object recognition. And we haven't developed anything AI-complete yet.
In the meantime, the need for moving large volumes of people point-to-point is proving increasingly necessary, as can be seen from the rise in passenger numbers. Not doing what is needed because there *may* be disruptive technology sometime in the future is not good planning.
My belief is the self driving car is in a way solving the wrong problem. We have "solved" the ability to control the cars automatically, what is now taking all the time and effort is compensating for idiot and unpredictable humans.
Instead if we worked towards a future where essentially our roads didn't have human driven cars, instead effectively road trains of these automated vehicles. So instead of calling an Uber, you called an automated pod, be it single or shared.
In a message to the Scottish electorate, she said: “patiently and respectfully, we will seek to convince you that independence really does offer the best future for Scotland
You Tory unionists just cannot help lying and smearing, despicable creatures.
Thank you for proving my point.
You'll have read the GERS figures then?
Who was lying?
And so much for 'once in a generation'
Who was lying?
It is the UK that has been running the country , they have caused the deficit, nothing in that failure means that an independent Scotland would commit the same mistakes and make such a hash of running the country. You do not appear to realise that we are not independent and do not have any control of the UK budget. Come back 5 or 10 years after independence and you can gloat then , till then try to think how the UK government be so absolute crap that they have got Scotland into such a hole. How is London going to turn things round , can you tell me.
An independent Scotland would inherit that deficit even if it had no debt (which it would). The simple fact is that Scotland spends more than it raises. And now the oil price has collapsed it spends a lot more than it raises. That's where the country would begin from when separation occurs. And there'd be no redistribution from the south anymore.
And your point is SO, that is how all countries work. They would have to buckle down , change policies etc and build a decent prosperous country unlike the ill divided poor one we have now.
PS , I think you mean the UK spends more than it raises, they make all the decisions at present.
It would seem all of Scotlands problems are caused by someone else...Pathetic
Maybe its the EU forcing London to make all those crap decisions. London contol the finances you halfwitted cretinous dunderheided moron. Send me your bankbook and I will decide what your money is spent on , lets then see how long you are happy with the arrangement.
If the case for independence is that it would prevent Scotland running a deficit the cuts and tax rises are going to be eye-watering.
I suspect the aspiration for trains to run at 250 mph came about to help make the business case for the project. Personally I would pull the plug on it.
The thing you need to bear in mind is that in 30 years, the need for HS2 will be unarguable. As with Crossrail and the Thameslink programme, "cancelling" it will merely put it on ice until it's desperately needed - and then we'll have to wait 20 years for it to be built.
I think adding new capacity is unarguable. We are never given alternatives. It is either HS2 or nothing ?
Well, you could build another Victorian style line, but I'm not sure why you would want to.
You mean one where passengers can get on and off at intermediate stations and interchange with other lines? One suitable to commuters?
We already have one of those. Because of the lack of capacity the intermediate stations don't have enough trains stopping.
Build a modern line for the long distance passengers and free up capacity on the old line. Not rocket science.
Particularly as some local stations are closed when lines are upgraded, as stopping services interfere with high-speed ones. For an example, witness Etruria, which closed in ?2006? when the WCML was upgraded.
So if you want more capacity on existing lines that have already been much upgraded, expect fewer local services, and even for local stations to be closed.
COUNCIL RESULTS: Labour +32, Tories -12 and Lib Dems -1 NUMBER OF SEATS: Labour +823, Tories -405, Lib Dems -336 Labour on course for big gains in local elections, with 39% of the vote against Tories with 31% and Lib Dems 16% Councillors turn on 'catastrophe Clegg' as his party loses 50% of seats Coalition civil war as Tories urge Cameron to ditch 'barmy liberal' policies like gay marriage and Lords reform
Blairite who prefers Tory rule to a Labour Government thinks this is underperforming
Yep, it was nowhere near enough at that stage of the electoral cycle and preceded a Labour disaster at the general election. I understand why you want to ignore that simple fact; but a fact it is.
But the 2015 election in England was not a disaster for Labour . The disaster for them was Scotland - with Wales also being poor. The second disaster from Labour's perspective was the collapse of the LibDems and the handing of a bucketful of seats to the Tories - but there was not much that Labour could have done about that beyond maximising its own gains from the LibDems , and it largely succeeded in doing that. In England, there was actually a Con to Lab swing of over 1% - nothing to get excited about and outside London tended to be in the non-marginal seats. Nevertheless the English results were a disappointment rather than a disaster last year , and Labour has experienced far worse there since World War 2.
In a message to the Scottish electorate, she said: “patiently and respectfully, we will seek to convince you that independence really does offer the best future for Scotland
You Tory unionists just cannot help lying and smearing, despicable creatures.
Thank you for proving my point.
You'll have read the GERS figures then?
Who was lying?
And so much for 'once in a generation'
Who was lying?
It is the UK that has been running the country , they have caused the deficit, nothing in that failure means that an independent Scotland would commit the same mistakes and make such a hash of running the country. You do not appear to realise that we are not independent and do not have any control of the UK budget. Come back 5 or 10 years after independence and you can gloat then , till then try to think how the UK government be so absolute crap that they have got Scotland into such a hole. How is London going to turn things round , can you tell me.
An independent Scotland would inherit that deficit even if it had no debt (which it would). The simple fact is that Scotland spends more than it raises. And now the oil price has collapsed it spends a lot more than it raises. That's where the country would begin from when separation occurs. And there'd be no redistribution from the south anymore.
And your point is SO, that is how all countries work. They would have to buckle down , change policies etc and build a decent prosperous country unlike the ill divided poor one we have now.
PS , I think you mean the UK spends more than it raises, they make all the decisions at present.
Yep and in the immediate short term Scotland would have to seriously increase tax income (good luck there as Nicola pointed out yesterday) and / or drastically reduce spending ....
' Not doing what is needed because there *may* be disruptive technology sometime in the future is not good planning.'
Hmmm sounds a little like the kind of reasoning that kept us using steam trains for many years past their sell-by date.
The ridiculous price tag of HS2 is the key issue though. It can't be justified as a use of resources when there are so many pressing improvements needed elsewhere on the transport network. The same funds, spread over a number of these projects, would yield far greater gains. HS2 is a vanity project.
It would seem all of Scotlands problems are caused by someone else...Pathetic
Maybe its the EU forcing London to make all those crap decisions. London contol the finances you halfwitted cretinous dunderheided moron. Send me your bankbook and I will decide what your money is spent on , lets then see how long you are happy with the arrangement.
If the case for independence is that it would prevent Scotland running a deficit the cuts and tax rises are going to be eye-watering.
There is a lot more to it than just whether you have a deficit or not. If you choose to have one then at least it is based on what you want for the country and on things you think that matter. Currently we are forced to have one but are not allowed to choose what it is spent on. There are few countries without a deficit and life is not all about money despite what you Tories ( I know you pretend to be Labour ) down south think.
In a message to the Scottish electorate, she said: “patiently and respectfully, we will seek to convince you that independence really does offer the best future for Scotland
You Tory unionists just cannot help lying and smearing, despicable creatures.
Thank you for proving my point.
You'll have read the GERS figures then?
Who was lying?
And so much for 'once in a generation'
Who was lying?
It is the UK that has been running the country , they have caused the deficit, nothing in that failure means that an independent Scotland would commit the same mistakes and make such a hash of running the country. You do not appear to realise that we are not independent and do not have any control of the UK budget. Come back 5 or 10 years after independence and you can gloat then , till then try to think how the UK government be so absolute crap that they have got Scotland into such a hole. How is London going to turn things round , can you tell me.
An independent Scotland would inherit that deficit even if it had no debt (which it would). The simple fact is that Scotland spends more than it raises. And now the oil price has collapsed it spends a lot more than it raises. That's where the country would begin from when separation occurs. And there'd be no redistribution from the south anymore.
And your point is SO, that is how all countries work. They would have to buckle down , change policies etc and build a decent prosperous country unlike the ill divided poor one we have now.
PS , I think you mean the UK spends more than it raises, they make all the decisions at present.
I agree. You make the honest case for independence. The SNP doesn't.
I suspect the aspiration for trains to run at 250 mph came about to help make the business case for the project. Personally I would pull the plug on it.
The thing you need to bear in mind is that in 30 years, the need for HS2 will be unarguable. As with Crossrail and the Thameslink programme, "cancelling" it will merely put it on ice until it's desperately needed - and then we'll have to wait 20 years for it to be built.
I think adding new capacity is unarguable. We are never given alternatives. It is either HS2 or nothing ?
Well, you could build another Victorian style line, but I'm not sure why you would want to.
You mean one where passengers can get on and off at intermediate stations and interchange with other lines? One suitable to commuters?
We already have one of those. Because of the lack of capacity the intermediate stations don't have enough trains stopping.
Build a modern line for the long distance passengers and free up capacity on the old line. Not rocket science.
No point in a second network that doesn't link in.
For example the only HS2 station in the East Midlands will be halfway between Nottingham and Derby. Convenient for nearly no-one in the East Midlands. It would take as long to get there from Leicester as it currently takes to get to St Pancras. And the East Midlands at least has a track!
How many journeys actually start at Euston and go to Brum without a journey at either end?
In a message to the Scottish electorate, she said: “patiently and respectfully, we will seek to convince you that independence really does offer the best future for Scotland
You Tory unionists just cannot help lying and smearing, despicable creatures.
Thank you for proving my point.
You'll have read the GERS figures then?
Who was lying?
And so much for 'once in a generation'
Who was lying?
It is the UK that has been running the country , they have caused the deficit, nothing in that failure means that an independent Scotland would commit the same mistakes and make such a hash of running the country. You do not appear to realise that we are not independent and do not have any control of the UK budget. Come back 5 or 10 years after independence and you can gloat then , till then try to think how the UK government be so absolute crap that they have got Scotland into such a hole. How is London going to turn things round , can you tell me.
An independent Scotland would inherit that deficit even if it had no debt (which it would). The simple fact is that Scotland spends more than it raises. And now the oil price has collapsed it spends a lot more than it raises. That's where the country would begin from when separation occurs. And there'd be no redistribution from the south anymore.
And your point is SO, that is how all countries work. They would have to buckle down , change policies etc and build a decent prosperous country unlike the ill divided poor one we have now.
PS , I think you mean the UK spends more than it raises, they make all the decisions at present.
Yep and in the immediate short term Scotland would have to seriously increase tax income (good luck there as Nicola pointed out yesterday) and / or drastically reduce spending ....
Or do as the UK does in the short term and borrow. If you look at it over a sensible period, like any intelligent person would, of 5 or 10 years then Scotland has a very good position and would be flat or in surplus. It is very easy for someone to pick one year and say a country is a basket case , would you like to pick one for England, any one of the last 7 or 8 perhaps and give me your comparison.
It would seem all of Scotlands problems are caused by someone else...Pathetic
Maybe its the EU forcing London to make all those crap decisions. London contol the finances you halfwitted cretinous dunderheided moron. Send me your bankbook and I will decide what your money is spent on , lets then see how long you are happy with the arrangement.
If the case for independence is that it would prevent Scotland running a deficit the cuts and tax rises are going to be eye-watering.
There is a lot more to it than just whether you have a deficit or not. If you choose to have one then at least it is based on what you want for the country and on things you think that matter. Currently we are forced to have one but are not allowed to choose what it is spent on. There are few countries without a deficit and life is not all about money despite what you Tories ( I know you pretend to be Labour ) down south think.
All countries run a deficit. But not all countries run one that's over 9% of GDP. When they do, they have to cut to the bone and raise taxes. That's just a simple fact of life. Scotland's deficit is double that of the UK's. The country spends far more than it generates.
In a message to the Scottish electorate, she said: “patiently and respectfully, we will seek to convince you that independence really does offer the best future for Scotland
You Tory unionists just cannot help lying and smearing, despicable creatures.
Thank you for proving my point.
You'll have read the GERS figures then?
Who was lying?
And so much for 'once in a generation'
Who was lying?
It is the UK that has been running the country , they have caused the deficit, nothing in that failure means that an independent Scotland would commit the same mistakes and make such a hash of running the country. You do not appear to realise that we are not independent and do not have any control of the UK budget. Come back 5 or 10 years after independence and you can gloat then , till then try to think how the UK government be so absolute crap that they have got Scotland into such a hole. How is London going to turn things round , can you tell me.
An independent Scotland would inherit that deficit even if it had no debt (which it would). The simple fact is that Scotland spends more than it raises. And now the oil price has collapsed it spends a lot more than it raises. That's where the country would begin from when separation occurs. And there'd be no redistribution from the south anymore.
And your point is SO, that is how all countries work. They would have to buckle down , change policies etc and build a decent prosperous country unlike the ill divided poor one we have now.
PS , I think you mean the UK spends more than it raises, they make all the decisions at present.
I agree. You make the honest case for independence. The SNP doesn't.
UK , Better Together and all the others in the establishment don't either. The unionists were the best and biggest liars in the referendum and scared enough people to win and keep their own nests feathered, that is politics for you. The whole country now is obsessed with losing a fiver or a benefit or someone having something they don't , it is a pathetic country nowadays.
Labour need to move on from both Old Labour and New Labour. Both are very stale and neither addresses all the needs of today's electorate: fiscal responsibility, broad-based growth, responsive governance, protection of cultural identity.
Sounds like you're describing a Tory
Sounds like he is in favour of motherhood and apple pie!
All parties aspire to those things - the question is whether they have any realistic way of achieving them.
Meanwhile Jezza is off tilting at windmills...
I wouldn't say that all parties aspire to "protection of cultural identity".
I wouldn't say that all parties aspire to "fiscal responsibility" or any of the others either. Labour have never achieved fiscal responsibility, as Thatcher once remarked socialist governments "always run out of other people's money."
You'd think if Labour aspired to fiscal responsibility they'd have achieved it at least once before. Heck they could have even achieved it by accident without trying to.
You seem to be a bit ignorant of economic history. No Tory Government has bequeathed to a Labour Government either a Budget surplus or a Balance of Payments surplus. In 1970 Harold Wilson's Labour Government bequeathed BOTH to Heath's incoming administration. I believe Attlee achieved something similar in 1951.
My belief is the self driving car is in a way solving the wrong problem. We have "solved" the ability to control the cars automatically, what is now taking all the time and effort is compensating for idiot and unpredictable humans.
Instead if we worked towards a future where essentially our roads didn't have human driven cars, instead effectively road trains of these automated vehicles. So instead of calling an Uber, you called an automated pod, be it single or shared.
"We have "solved" the ability to control the cars automatically"
We have not. We have 'solved' the ability to do it on a small subset of roads that have been fully researched and programmed into the car. I can get in a car and drive on unfamiliar roads. The autonomous cars we have at the moment struggle at this. I can drive in most weathers. Autonomous cars have trouble with a little rain, yet alone snow.
As I said before, smoke and mirrors.
It's fine saying we should ban all human drivers and only allow autonomous drivers on the road, but that ignores pedestrians, animals, road flaws, etc, etc. Autonomous cars have to be able to manage the unexpected.
But it is interesting imagining the use-cases when the tech is perfected. The way I see it, we will not own them, unless we are rich. Instead, if I want to do a journey I'll go online and a website will give me various alternatives based on speed and cost. Say I wanted to go from here, just outside Cambridge, to Wimbledon. It may offer me a drive direct, but that would cost more due to congestion on the roads. Alternatively, it may offer me a cheaper, but slightly longer, journey to Cambridge station, where I board a train to London, where another autonomous car will be waiting to whisk me to my destination.
I'll be allowed to choose based on cost and time. If I alter my time, (e.g. outside of rush hour), then I might get a cheaper journey. Alternatively, if I'm commuting then I can book in advance and get priority on the roads.
Basically, autonomous cars will be part of a fully-integrated transport system.
Or do as the UK does in the short term and borrow. If you look at it over a sensible period, like any intelligent person would, of 5 or 10 years then Scotland has a very good position and would be flat or in surplus. It is very easy for someone to pick one year and say a country is a basket case , would you like to pick one for England, any one of the last 7 or 8 perhaps and give me your comparison.
Yep but we have zero interest rates, our own currency and a clear plan to cut expenditure (which is going to be far more painful then many hoped for). An independent Scotland would likely have none of those things to work from and may find borrowing money far more expensive than the UK can borrow at...
This is not a dig at Scotland by the way. It's more I wouldn't want to start at this moment in time with that percentage of structural deficit...
It is like watching a fight between a soggy paper bag and a defeated ideology. Can we avoid miscalculations and other GERS propositions: England always subsidises the Celts (and other Gaulish/Frankish hell-holes).
It would seem all of Scotlands problems are caused by someone else...Pathetic
Maybe its the EU forcing London to make all those crap decisions. London contol the finances you halfwitted cretinous dunderheided moron. Send me your bankbook and I will decide what your money is spent on , lets then see how long you are happy with the arrangement.
If the case for independence is that it would prevent Scotland running a deficit the cuts and tax rises are going to be eye-watering.
There is a lot more to it than just whether you have a deficit or not. If you choose to have one then at least it is based on what you want for the country and on things you think that matter. Currently we are forced to have one but are not allowed to choose what it is spent on. There are few countries without a deficit and life is not all about money despite what you Tories ( I know you pretend to be Labour ) down south think.
All countries run a deficit. But not all countries run one that's over 9% of GDP. When they do, they have to cut to the bone and raise taxes. That's just a simple fact of life. Scotland's deficit is double that of the UK's. The country spends far more than it generates.
SO , who knows what the number would be , the UK and GERS figures are only a guess at what the money would really be. Lots of business that in an independent country would be registered in Scotland is currently down as UK so no-one really knows the actual position other than it would be a deficit. As ever it is in the establishments interests to make it seem bad to try and dampen the fervour for a rematch , that will not change. Difference is we will either get poorer and poorer as now with UK policies or people will realise that money is not everything and get a backbone and decide they can do it better on their own rich or not.
PS both Ireland and Iceland were in much worse positions just a few years ago and after a small amount of hardship they are over it, it can be done but never when you are shackled to a huge partner who does not care.
'Find this a pretty tenuous argument and seems like an excuse to urge people to vote against Labour to be honest.'
Yep, pretty shameless last paragraph. Surprised Mike has allowed space on his site for a Tory activist to say 'vote against Labour in the election'. It's supposed to be a political analysis site, not electoral propaganda. TSE could well do with some tutoring on the writing front, too. Is English his second language?
A splendid example of a much loved political commentary tactic rarely epitomized so well, beginning from a reasoned if passionate disagreement of a stated view which is perfectly understandable to believe (in this case quoted from someone else), then slipping effortlessly from disputing the points to questioning the validity of making those opposing point at all, and from there into a personal attack. A long walk from the initial 'this is a poor argument' position, yet done so efficiently. Bravo, sir.
I thought that Nicola Sturgeon did rather well against Andrew Neil - certainly much better than the pro and anti European campaigners who he has ripped to shreds over the last couple of weeks. Significantly she is the only Party leader with the confidence to go anywhere near the great interrogator!
Of course a few examples of what Scotland is accounted as paying for within the GERS figures might have been helpful not just the interest on the national debt, but HS2, Trident, Hinkley Point might have been useful as illustrations of benign cuts in expenditure. However she was in good command of the key aspects of the case, kept calm and made Neil look a bit blustering.
I personally don't think we'll get them as 'good' as cars driven by a good, alert human driver without the tech being AI-complete, especially for good object recognition.
That's an incredibly high bar. At any given time what proportion of the cars on their road are being driven by a good, alert driver? Maybe 5%?
Or do as the UK does in the short term and borrow. If you look at it over a sensible period, like any intelligent person would, of 5 or 10 years then Scotland has a very good position and would be flat or in surplus. It is very easy for someone to pick one year and say a country is a basket case , would you like to pick one for England, any one of the last 7 or 8 perhaps and give me your comparison.
Yep but we have zero interest rates, our own currency and a clear plan to cut expenditure (which is going to be far more painful then many hoped for). An independent Scotland would likely have none of those things to work from and may find borrowing money far more expensive than the UK can borrow at...
This is not a dig at Scotland by the way. It's more I wouldn't want to start at this moment in time with that percentage of structural deficit...
Will there ever be a good time, they are gone now as the oil money has been squandered rebuilding London, you are correct in that it may well be tough. Unfortunately lots of people are sheep and others will always take the easy option, the UK is a shell of its former self full of pygmies with no bottle.
It would seem all of Scotlands problems are caused by someone else...Pathetic
Maybe its the EU forcing London to make all those crap decisions. London contol the finances you halfwitted cretinous dunderheided moron. Send me your bankbook and I will decide what your money is spent on , lets then see how long you are happy with the arrangement.
If the case for independence is that it would prevent Scotland running a deficit the cuts and tax rises are going to be eye-watering.
There is a lot more to it than just whether you have a deficit or not. If you choose to have one then at least it is based on what you want for the country and on things you think that matter. Currently we are forced to have one but are not allowed to choose what it is spent on. There are few countries without a deficit and life is not all about money despite what you Tories ( I know you pretend to be Labour ) down south think.
All countries run a deficit. But not all countries run one that's over 9% of GDP. When they do, they have to cut to the bone and raise taxes. That's just a simple fact of life. Scotland's deficit is double that of the UK's. The country spends far more than it generates.
SO , who knows what the number would be , the UK and GERS figures are only a guess at what the money would really be. Lots of business that in an independent country would be registered in Scotland is currently down as UK so no-one really knows the actual position other than it would be a deficit. As ever it is in the establishments interests to make it seem bad to try and dampen the fervour for a rematch , that will not change. Difference is we will either get poorer and poorer as now with UK policies or people will realise that money is not everything and get a backbone and decide they can do it better on their own rich or not.
PS both Ireland and Iceland were in much worse positions just a few years ago and after a small amount of hardship they are over it, it can be done but never when you are shackled to a huge partner who does not care.
Sure, Icelandic levels of tax and Irish levels of cuts will certainly make a dent. When I went to Iceland you could not take currency out of the country. Young Irish people are leaving Ireland in their droves.
It is like watching a fight between a soggy paper bag and a defeated ideology. Can we avoid miscalculations and other GERS propositions: England always subsidises the Celts (and other Gaulish/Frankish hell-holes).
:off-to-t'pub:
Little Englanders have finished polishing their boots and got dressed up I see. What are they like with no adult supervision.
It would seem all of Scotlands problems are caused by someone else...Pathetic
Maybe its the EU forcing London to make all those crap decisions. London contol the finances you halfwitted cretinous dunderheided moron. Send me your bankbook and I will decide what your money is spent on , lets then see how long you are happy with the arrangement.
If the case for independence is that it would prevent Scotland running a deficit the cuts and tax rises are going to be eye-watering.
There is a lot more to it than just whether you have a deficit or not. If you choose to have one then at least it is based on what you want for the country and on things you think that matter. Currently we are forced to have one but are not allowed to choose what it is spent on. There are few countries without a deficit and life is not all about money despite what you Tories ( I know you pretend to be Labour ) down south think.
All countries run a deficit. But not all countries run one that's over 9% of GDP. When they do, they have to cut to the bone and raise taxes. That's just a simple fact of life. Scotland's deficit is double that of the UK's. The country spends far more than it generates.
Sure, Icelandic levels of tax and Irish levels of cuts will certainly make a dent. When I went to Iceland you could not take currency out of the country. Young Irish people are leaving Ireland in their droves.
You think Scotland is a Utopia at present, I bet both Ireland and Iceland are streets ahead. This is not leafy Warwickshire I can assure you, there is lots and lots of deprivation, like parts of England , and I do not see any interest from London in sorting it. They just want to fund homes in London for their chums.
I thought that Nicola Sturgeon did rather well against Andrew Neil - certainly much better than the pro and anti European campaigners who he has ripped to shreds over the last couple of weeks. Significantly she is the only Party leader with the confidence to go anywhere near the great interrogator!
Of course a few examples of what Scotland is accounted as paying for within the GERS figures might have been helpful not just the interest on the national debt, but HS2, Trident, Hinkley Point might have been useful as illustrations of benign cuts in expenditure. However she was in good command of the key aspects of the case, kept calm and made Neil look a bit blustering.
The Scottish government's figures already strip out non-Scottish spending.
The most interesting aspect of the Neil interview was that Sturgeon stated austerity would be needed if Scotland were to become independent. That's a significant change and a clear admission the SNP has been telling porkies.
On the question of devolved income tax, do you think that could help encourage Conservative policies of competitive taxation rates and demonstrate the Laffer curve which we all understand to be real in action?
I'm thinking that if the Tory government decides in a year or two to for example cut the top rate of tax back to 40% from 45% then the SNP would face an awkward choice: keep their tax rates high and see a flight of taxes from Holyrood to Westminster (just like Westminster has received a flight of French taxes) - or continue their practice of being Yellow Tories and cut the tax rate themselves.
I expect they'd opt to be Yellow Tories and cut the tax themselves too.
The Laffer curve does not predict that cutting tax rates increases tax take. If it did, it wouldn't be a curve :
I understand that but due to the pernicious effect of socialist parties raising taxes repeatedly, as well as the globalised nature of the world today making income and investments easier to change jurisdictions than ever before, we are to the right of the peak of the curve.
Nonsense. The best academic evidence trying to find this suggest we're on slight left of peak for income taxes. On IHT we are well to the left.
I agree with the idea of scrapping all the exemptions from IHT, while sharply cutting the rate from 40%, to perhaps 10%.
Agreed 100%. A 10% rate with no exemptions would probably garner the same revenues, with massively less unfairness.
I suggested something similar yesterday, a 5% rate with no exceptions (except a threshold).
Given the real rate currently received is about 2% then that would still be a boost.
Personally, I've never understood why it is the estate that gets taxed rather than the beneficiary. Surely an inheritance is just income.
I'm speculating here but I'm guessing it's because inheritance tax goes way, way back to feudal times, whereas Britain has only had income tax for the last 200 years or so.
This is bizarre, what possible reason is there for prior permission required for literally unmasking possible suspects?
Hunt saboteurs will have to remove their masks if police receive new powers demanded by MPs after a spate of countryside attacks.
Animal rights activists often disguise themselves with hoods, masks or balaclavas at hunts and pheasant shoots. There have been several incidents where people have been injured but no prosecutions as victims cannot identify assailants.
Currently, police must get advance permission to demand protesters remove facial coverings, set out in section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
No point in a second network that doesn't link in.
For example the only HS2 station in the East Midlands will be halfway between Nottingham and Derby. Convenient for nearly no-one in the East Midlands. It would take as long to get there from Leicester as it currently takes to get to St Pancras. And the East Midlands at least has a track!
How many journeys actually start at Euston and go to Brum without a journey at either end?
HS2 links in very well. Many trains will be running over the rest of the network, then onto other destinations using HS2 tracks. Hence Scotland, Preston, Liverpool etc will get HS2 services, which is why the first phase has been extended to Crewe early, so trains from up north get the advantage early.
It's more choice and more trains. And it's not as if the existing rail network is being forgotten: Leicester's line is being electrified in the next few years, further improving journey times that (from memory) were improved just a year or two ago.
For potential advantages of released capacity to Leicester, see Network Rail's 'Better Connections' report.
Interesting to have an intelligent debate for a change , not many of the usual nutjobs around today, but I have to leave . Some gardening and plants to pot. I will depart with this one thought.
"UK governments have had 300 years to get Scotland into a healthy shape, but it’s somehow Scotland’s fault that it is a mess"
I thought that Nicola Sturgeon did rather well against Andrew Neil - certainly much better than the pro and anti European campaigners who he has ripped to shreds over the last couple of weeks. Significantly she is the only Party leader with the confidence to go anywhere near the great interrogator!
Of course a few examples of what Scotland is accounted as paying for within the GERS figures might have been helpful not just the interest on the national debt, but HS2, Trident, Hinkley Point might have been useful as illustrations of benign cuts in expenditure. However she was in good command of the key aspects of the case, kept calm and made Neil look a bit blustering.
The Scottish government's figures already strip out non-Scottish spending.
The most interesting aspect of the Neil interview was that Sturgeon stated austerity would be needed if Scotland were to become independent. That's a significant change and a clear admission the SNP has been telling porkies.
Sturgeon speaks of the "Scottish Dream" of independence. If she was honest she should have said "Nightmare".
It would seem all of Scotlands problems are caused by someone else...Pathetic
Maybe its the EU forcing London to make all those crap decisions. London contol the finances you halfwitted cretinous dunderheided moron. Send me your bankbook and I will decide what your money is spent on , lets then see how long you are happy with the arrangement.
If the case for independence is that it would prevent Scotland running a deficit the cuts and tax rises are going to be eye-watering.
There is a lot more to it than just whether you have a deficit or not. If you choose to have one then at least it is based on what you want for the country and on things you think that matter. Currently we are forced to have one but are not allowed to choose what it is spent on. There are few countries without a deficit and life is not all about money despite what you Tories ( I know you pretend to be Labour ) down south think.
All countries run a deficit. But not all countries run one that's over 9% of GDP. When they do, they have to cut to the bone and raise taxes. That's just a simple fact of life. Scotland's deficit is double that of the UK's. The country spends far more than it generates.
Sure, Icelandic levels of tax and Irish levels of cuts will certainly make a dent. When I went to Iceland you could not take currency out of the country. Young Irish people are leaving Ireland in their droves.
You think Scotland is a Utopia at present, I bet both Ireland and Iceland are streets ahead. This is not leafy Warwickshire I can assure you, there is lots and lots of deprivation, like parts of England , and I do not see any interest from London in sorting it. They just want to fund homes in London for their chums.
There's lots of deprivation in all parts of the UK. The SNP is so concerned about fighting it in Scotland they subsidise the wealthiest and give them tax cuts.
No point in a second network that doesn't link in.
For example the only HS2 station in the East Midlands will be halfway between Nottingham and Derby. Convenient for nearly no-one in the East Midlands. It would take as long to get there from Leicester as it currently takes to get to St Pancras. And the East Midlands at least has a track!
How many journeys actually start at Euston and go to Brum without a journey at either end?
HS2 links in very well. Many trains will be running over the rest of the network, then onto other destinations using HS2 tracks. Hence Scotland, Preston, Liverpool etc will get HS2 services, which is why the first phase has been extended to Crewe early, so trains from up north get the advantage early.
It's more choice and more trains. And it's not as if the existing rail network is being forgotten: Leicefoster's line is being electrified in the next few years, further improving journey times that (from memory) were improved just a year or two ago.
For potential advantages of released capacity to Leicester, see Network Rail's 'Better Connections' report.
' Not doing what is needed because there *may* be disruptive technology sometime in the future is not good planning.'
Hmmm sounds a little like the kind of reasoning that kept us using steam trains for many years past their sell-by date.
The ridiculous price tag of HS2 is the key issue though. It can't be justified as a use of resources when there are so many pressing improvements needed elsewhere on the transport network. The same funds, spread over a number of these projects, would yield far greater gains.
Interesting to have an intelligent debate for a change , not many of the usual nutjobs around today, but I have to leave . Some gardening and plants to pot. I will depart with this one thought.
"UK governments have had 300 years to get Scotland into a healthy shape, but it’s somehow Scotland’s fault that it is a mess"
Can anyone explain that one.
After all the Scottish Leaders of the UK - you blame the UK.....
I suspect the aspiration for trains to run at 250 mph came about to help make the business case for the project. Personally I would pull the plug on it.
The thing you need to bear in mind is that in 30 years, the need for HS2 will be unarguable. As with Crossrail and the Thameslink programme, "cancelling" it will merely put it on ice until it's desperately needed - and then we'll have to wait 20 years for it to be built.
I think adding new capacity is unarguable. We are never given alternatives. It is either HS2 or nothing ?
Well, you could build another Victorian style line, but I'm not sure why you would want to.
You mean one where passengers can get on and off at intermediate stations and interchange with other lines? One suitable to commuters?
We already have one of those. Because of the lack of capacity the intermediate stations don't have enough trains stopping.
Build a modern line for the long distance passengers and free up capacity on the old line. Not rocket science.
No point in a second network that doesn't link in.
For example the only HS2 station in the East Midlands will be halfway between Nottingham and Derby. Convenient for nearly no-one in the East Midlands.
Because nearly nobody currently lives where there isn't a station...
No point in a second network that doesn't link in.
For example the only HS2 station in the East Midlands will be halfway between Nottingham and Derby. Convenient for nearly no-one in the East Midlands. It would take as long to get there from Leicester as it currently takes to get to St Pancras. And the East Midlands at least has a track!
How many journeys actually start at Euston and go to Brum without a journey at either end?
HS2 links in very well. Many trains will be running over the rest of the network, then onto other destinations using HS2 tracks. Hence Scotland, Preston, Liverpool etc will get HS2 services, which is why the first phase has been extended to Crewe early, so trains from up north get the advantage early.
It's more choice and more trains. And it's not as if the existing rail network is being forgotten: Leicefoster's line is being electrified in the next few years, further improving journey times that (from memory) were improved just a year or two ago.
For potential advantages of released capacity to Leicester, see Network Rail's 'Better Connections' report.
You are kidding , they are talking 50 to 60 years before it reaches Scotland which means never in reality. Cuckoo.
No, I'm not kidding. The rails do not need to reach Scotland for trains from Scotland to gain an advantage, as they can join the high-speed route further south near Wigan.
So what are we thinking is going to happen in the budget? I have seen mooted:
- Rise in threshold 40p rate - Cutting 45p rate - Quicker than expected rise in National Insurance - Stealth taxes
Looks like the pension changes are dead so money has to come from somewhere. CGT would be nice but Ozzy needs the oldies on side for the referendum, so I expect some combination of stealth taxes, welfare cuts and possibly a small raise of the 40p threshold.
No point in a second network that doesn't link in.
For example the only HS2 station in the East Midlands will be halfway between Nottingham and Derby. Convenient for nearly no-one in the East Midlands. It would take as long to get there from Leicester as it currently takes to get to St Pancras. And the East Midlands at least has a track!
How many journeys actually start at Euston and go to Brum without a journey at either end?
HS2 links in very well. Many trains will be running over the rest of the network, then onto other destinations using HS2 tracks. Hence Scotland, Preston, Liverpool etc will get HS2 services, which is why the first phase has been extended to Crewe early, so trains from up north get the advantage early.
It's more choice and more trains. And it's not as if the existing rail network is being forgotten: Leicefoster's line is being electrified in the next few years, further improving journey times that (from memory) were improved just a year or two ago.
For potential advantages of released capacity to Leicester, see Network Rail's 'Better Connections' report.
You are kidding , they are talking 50 to 60 years before it reaches Scotland which means never in reality. Cuckoo.
No, I'm not kidding. The rails do not need to reach Scotland for trains from Scotland to gain an advantage, as they can join the high-speed route further south near Wigan.
Besides if the SNP want it in Scotland sooner I'm sure they could contribute funds.
So what are we thinking is going to happen in the budget? I have seen mooted:
- Rise in threshold 40p rate - Cutting 45p rate - Quicker than expected rise in National Insurance - Stealth taxes
Looks like the pension changes are dead so money has to come from somewhere. CGT would be nice but Ozzy needs the oldies on side for the referendum, so I expect some combination of stealth taxes, welfare cuts and possibly a small raise of the 40p threshold.
A minister has already been briefing that there will be cuts to PIP (a disability benefit).
That'll sit nicely alongside a rise in the 40p threshold.
Hint: unless we vote LEAVE, there won't be a referendum before 2020. I'll offer £1000 at evens on that. I very much doubt there will be one before 2030.
Hosie said this morning there won't be a referendum even if we vote leave. Sturgeon said as much yesterday, although the Zoomers didn't hear it
That was not what the conference delegates thought they heard as the First Minister announced a new independence ‘initiative’ to be launched ‘this summer’ but it was what they were told nonetheless. There are no plans for IndyRef2, at least not yet. Ms Sturgeon prefers to bide her time, trusting that the arc of history bends in her direction. Patience, people.
All those things that were going to ‘trigger’ another referendum? Unmentioned. At least for now. Brexit? Not enough. At least not on its own. Not yet.
So what are we thinking is going to happen in the budget? I have seen mooted:
- Rise in threshold 40p rate - Cutting 45p rate - Quicker than expected rise in National Insurance - Stealth taxes
Looks like the pension changes are dead so money has to come from somewhere. CGT would be nice but Ozzy needs the oldies on side for the referendum, so I expect some combination of stealth taxes, welfare cuts and possibly a small raise of the 40p threshold.
A minister has already been briefing that there will be cuts to PIP (a disability benefit).
That'll sit nicely alongside a rise in the 40p threshold.
I've seen a lot of buzz around a £30 a week cut in disability benefits - but I think that was a previous ESA cut.
I am struggling to see how he can shore up his own position among the Tory core vote without doing something horrid.
Interesting article by Doug Wead, a longtime libertarian and strategist for both the Ron Paul and Rand Paul campaign, outlining the many ways in which the Establishment can try and steal the nomination from under Trump’s nose.
Looks like Cruz is up to five states with a majority of delegates and Rubio to two. Enough states in the West for Cruz to still make it to eight. Problem is if it is just Trump and Cruz who make the benchmark then it will easy for Trump to reach the simple majority as Rule 40 prohibits the recording of any delegates won by candidates who failed to meet the eight-state threshold. Even if Rubio and Kasich win their winner-take-all home states of Florida and Ohio, respectively, on March 15, it will be a formidable challenge in a four-man race for them to win a majority of delegates in eight states without a strong swing of support in their favor. So, it is not entirely out of the question that Trump alone or perhaps Trump and Cruz could end up being the only nominees at the convention, with all the Rubio and Kasich delegates effectively set to the side uncounted.
This outcome would mean that the magic figure – a simple majority – to win the nomination would drop below the stated requirement of 1,237 delegates. The practical effect of Rule 40, in wiping out the delegates won by candidates who cannot meet the threshold, makes a first-ballot victory a virtual certainty if there are only one or two candidates who are able to get their names placed in nomination.
Of course, there is the possibility that Republican Party leaders, who are mounting a frantic stop-Trump movement, might move to modify Rule 40 before the convention. North Dakota National Committeeman Curly Haugland, a member of the RNC Rules Committee, told The Daily Caller on Tuesday that there will be an attempt to change Rule 40 to open the convention to any candidate who has won any delegates.
Such a rule change, however, would have to be placed before the convention, meaning that it would need a majority of the delegates to pass, a difficult hurdle if Trump controls most of the votes. But if he doesn’t, the maneuver could open a path for denying him the nomination on the first ballot and then steering the prize to another candidate on subsequent ballots, i.e., a “brokered” convention.
I suspect the aspiration for trains to run at 250 mph came about to help make the business case for the project. Personally I would pull the plug on it.
The thing you need to bear in mind is that in 30 years, the need for HS2 will be unarguable. As with Crossrail and the Thameslink programme, "cancelling" it will merely put it on ice until it's desperately needed - and then we'll have to wait 20 years for it to be built.
I think adding new capacity is unarguable. We are never given alternatives. It is either HS2 or nothing ?
Well, you could build another Victorian style line, but I'm not sure why you would want to.
You mean one where passengers can get on and off at intermediate stations and interchange with other lines? One suitable to commuters?
We already have one of those. Because of the lack of capacity the intermediate stations don't have enough trains stopping.
Build a modern line for the long distance passengers and free up capacity on the old line. Not rocket science.
No point in a second network that doesn't link in.
For example the only HS2 station in the East Midlands will be halfway between Nottingham and Derby. Convenient for nearly no-one in the East Midlands.
Because nearly nobody currently lives where there isn't a station...
Actually, there are plans to extend the Nottingham tram system to link into Derby and HS2 at Toton.
On the question of devolved income tax, do you think that could help encourage Conservative policies of competitive taxation rates and demonstrate the Laffer curve which we all understand to be real in action?
I'm thinking that if the Tory government decides in a year or two to for example cut the top rate of tax back to 40% from 45% then the SNP would face an awkward choice: keep their tax rates high and see a flight of taxes from Holyrood to Westminster (just like Westminster has received a flight of French taxes) - or continue their practice of being Yellow Tories and cut the tax rate themselves.
I expect they'd opt to be Yellow Tories and cut the tax themselves too.
The Laffer curve does not predict that cutting tax rates increases tax take. If it did, it wouldn't be a curve :
I understand that but due to the pernicious effect of socialist parties raising taxes repeatedly, as well as the globalised nature of the world today making income and investments easier to change jurisdictions than ever before, we are to the right of the peak of the curve.
Nonsense. The best academic evidence trying to find this suggest we're on slight left of peak for income taxes. On IHT we are well to the left.
I agree with the idea of scrapping all the exemptions from IHT, while sharply cutting the rate from 40%, to perhaps 10%.
Agreed 100%. A 10% rate with no exemptions would probably garner the same revenues, with massively less unfairness.
I suggested something similar yesterday, a 5% rate with no exceptions (except a threshold).
Given the real rate currently received is about 2% then that would still be a boost.
Personally, I've never understood why it is the estate that gets taxed rather than the beneficiary. Surely an inheritance is just income.
I'm speculating here but I'm guessing it's because inheritance tax goes way, way back to feudal times, whereas Britain has only had income tax for the last 200 years or so.
Not really. The current system can only be traced to the Succession Duty Act 1853.
On the question of devolved income tax, do you think that could help encourage Conservative policies of competitive taxation rates and demonstrate the Laffer curve which we all understand to be real in action?
I'm thinking that if the Tory government decides in a year or two to for example cut the top rate of tax back to 40% from 45% then the SNP would face an awkward choice: keep their tax rates high and see a flight of taxes from Holyrood to Westminster (just like Westminster has received a flight of French taxes) - or continue their practice of being Yellow Tories and cut the tax rate themselves.
I expect they'd opt to be Yellow Tories and cut the tax themselves too.
The Laffer curve does not predict that cutting tax rates increases tax take. If it did, it wouldn't be a curve :
I understand that but due to the pernicious effect of socialist parties raising taxes repeatedly, as well as the globalised nature of the world today making income and investments easier to change jurisdictions than ever before, we are to the right of the peak of the curve.
You do realise taxes are a lot lower than they used to be, right? (Not to mention that the post war period of higher taxes showed a superior rate of sustained growth compared with the current period of lower taxes).
Wrong again. Taxes are higher now than they've ever been. Tax rates are lower, tax receipts are higher. Funny that.
The post war period grew globally due to reconstruction and the baby boom. But the UK fell behind the rest of the developed world due to our adoption of socialism. That has since been largely reversed.
All of the 40 employees of welfare-to-work organisations I interviewed in 2011 said that many of their long-term (i.e. over 6 months, often several years) JSA claimant clients remained unemployed because they were very ‘choosy’ in the jobs they were willing to do...
So what are we thinking is going to happen in the budget? I have seen mooted:
- Rise in threshold 40p rate - Cutting 45p rate - Quicker than expected rise in National Insurance - Stealth taxes
Looks like the pension changes are dead so money has to come from somewhere. CGT would be nice but Ozzy needs the oldies on side for the referendum, so I expect some combination of stealth taxes, welfare cuts and possibly a small raise of the 40p threshold.
A minister has already been briefing that there will be cuts to PIP (a disability benefit).
That'll sit nicely alongside a rise in the 40p threshold.
I've seen a lot of buzz around a £30 a week cut in disability benefits - but I think that was a previous ESA cut.
I am struggling to see how he can shore up his own position among the Tory core vote without doing something horrid.
This outcome would mean that the magic figure – a simple majority – to win the nomination would drop below the stated requirement of 1,237 delegates. The practical effect of Rule 40, in wiping out the delegates won by candidates who cannot meet the threshold, makes a first-ballot victory a virtual certainty if there are only one or two candidates who are able to get their names placed in nomination.
Is that correct? I thought the 8 state threshold only restricted the names that are put forward for the initial vote, but the delegates are still there at the convention (witness the Ron Paul fiasco last time), so why would the simple majority threshold not stay the same?
All of the 40 employees of welfare-to-work organisations I interviewed in 2011 said that many of their long-term (i.e. over 6 months, often several years) JSA claimant clients remained unemployed because they were very ‘choosy’ in the jobs they were willing to do; most of the 40 said they believed that a majority of these clients would enter employment within two months if they applied for a range of relatively unattractive jobs; some said they were shocked by their clients’ apparent preference for benefits over unattractive jobs which, they said, had led them to abandon the more favourable attitudes towards the long-term unemployed they held prior to entering the industry.
Hint: unless we vote LEAVE, there won't be a referendum before 2020. I'll offer £1000 at evens on that. I very much doubt there will be one before 2030.
Hosie said this morning there won't be a referendum even if we vote leave. Sturgeon said as much yesterday, although the Zoomers didn't hear it
That was not what the conference delegates thought they heard as the First Minister announced a new independence ‘initiative’ to be launched ‘this summer’ but it was what they were told nonetheless. There are no plans for IndyRef2, at least not yet. Ms Sturgeon prefers to bide her time, trusting that the arc of history bends in her direction. Patience, people.
All those things that were going to ‘trigger’ another referendum? Unmentioned. At least for now. Brexit? Not enough. At least not on its own. Not yet.
Let us just say for the sake of argument that The Independent on Sunday chose not to reveal the EUref voting intentions from its Comres poll (I cannot believe that this question was not asked). That surely means truly scary polling for Remain? The big guns are coming (Obama), there is literally no-one else short of the Pope - the Royal family are pretty much out of it now on either side. Can we expect the EU equivalent of 'The Vow' at some point? Is this possible? It would have to be something that doesn't need the assent of all the member states, possibly things the UK Government could sort of do anyway, but somehow with the EU's seal of approval?
The truth is, we live in a world that is run by bankers, bureaucrats and accountants. For decades, they have pushed a technocratic agenda that has been implemented by politicians of both Left and Right...
This agenda favours big business over small, fetishises globalisation, and is relaxed about immigration – regardless of the consequences for working people. As factories close, jobs disappear and wages fall, the response from the elite has been callous and inhuman: ‘This is the world we live in: suck it up and get with the programme.’...Well, people have had enough of being dismissed and patronised by the elite
All of the 40 employees of welfare-to-work organisations I interviewed in 2011 said that many of their long-term (i.e. over 6 months, often several years) JSA claimant clients remained unemployed because they were very ‘choosy’ in the jobs they were willing to do...
I'm curious how they get away with this attitude, given all the sanctions the DWP have up their sleeve.
I suspect the aspiration for trains to run at 250 mph came about to help make the business case for the project. Personally I would pull the plug on it.
The thing you need to bear in mind is that in 30 years, the need for HS2 will be unarguable. As with Crossrail and the Thameslink programme, "cancelling" it will merely put it on ice until it's desperately needed - and then we'll have to wait 20 years for it to be built.
I think adding new capacity is unarguable. We are never given alternatives. It is either HS2 or nothing ?
Well, you could build another Victorian style line, but I'm not sure why you would want to.
You mean one where passengers can get on and off at intermediate stations and interchange with other lines? One suitable to commuters?
We already have one of those. Because of the lack of capacity the intermediate stations don't have enough trains stopping.
Build a modern line for the long distance passengers and free up capacity on the old line. Not rocket science.
No point in a second network that doesn't link in.
For example the only HS2 station in the East Midlands will be halfway between Nottingham and Derby. Convenient for nearly no-one in the East Midlands.
Because nearly nobody currently lives where there isn't a station...
Actually, there are plans to extend the Nottingham tram system to link into Derby and HS2 at Toton.
London to Toton at 200 mph. Toton to Nottingham at 20 mph!
While at present it is possible to travel to Nottingham from St Pancras in 90 minutes at present, with no change.
In the East Midlands we have an excellent service to St Pancras, with onwards connections to the continent. The HS2 service will be more expensive and less convenient.
Hint: unless we vote LEAVE, there won't be a referendum before 2020. I'll offer £1000 at evens on that. I very much doubt there will be one before 2030.
Hosie said this morning there won't be a referendum even if we vote leave. Sturgeon said as much yesterday, although the Zoomers didn't hear it
That was not what the conference delegates thought they heard as the First Minister announced a new independence ‘initiative’ to be launched ‘this summer’ but it was what they were told nonetheless. There are no plans for IndyRef2, at least not yet. Ms Sturgeon prefers to bide her time, trusting that the arc of history bends in her direction. Patience, people.
All those things that were going to ‘trigger’ another referendum? Unmentioned. At least for now. Brexit? Not enough. At least not on its own. Not yet.
Hint: unless we vote LEAVE, there won't be a referendum before 2020. I'll offer £1000 at evens on that. I very much doubt there will be one before 2030.
Hosie said this morning there won't be a referendum even if we vote leave. Sturgeon said as much yesterday, although the Zoomers didn't hear it
That was not what the conference delegates thought they heard as the First Minister announced a new independence ‘initiative’ to be launched ‘this summer’ but it was what they were told nonetheless. There are no plans for IndyRef2, at least not yet. Ms Sturgeon prefers to bide her time, trusting that the arc of history bends in her direction. Patience, people.
All those things that were going to ‘trigger’ another referendum? Unmentioned. At least for now. Brexit? Not enough. At least not on its own. Not yet.
This outcome would mean that the magic figure – a simple majority – to win the nomination would drop below the stated requirement of 1,237 delegates. The practical effect of Rule 40, in wiping out the delegates won by candidates who cannot meet the threshold, makes a first-ballot victory a virtual certainty if there are only one or two candidates who are able to get their names placed in nomination.
Is that correct? I thought the 8 state threshold only restricted the names that are put forward for the initial vote, but the delegates are still there at the convention (witness the Ron Paul fiasco last time), so why would the simple majority threshold not stay the same?
I have read different things but the source is reputable for this contention. American 'democracy' is anything but clear and transparent.
Probably overstates Trump but this poll has him beating HRC 49 to 42 in a state Romney won 50 to 48. Would imply Virgina would go GOP too.
All of the 40 employees of welfare-to-work organisations I interviewed in 2011 said that many of their long-term (i.e. over 6 months, often several years) JSA claimant clients remained unemployed because they were very ‘choosy’ in the jobs they were willing to do...
I'm curious how they get away with this attitude, given all the sanctions the DWP have up their sleeve.
The sanction system was used for less frequently than it should have been and even then the system is designed to protect children, so lazy parents still get supported for the sake of the children.
Claimants claim-hop as well. Jumping from the dole register to the doctor's surgery.
An incredible 1 in 6 people in Glasgow East are 'disabled' using claimant count numbers to define them.
Comments
And the ongoing commodity down cycle will continue to weigh very heavily on the South African economy. It could all go horribly wrong.
I wonder if the Cape would declare independence in the event of a disintegration of South Africa
You'll have read the GERS figures then?
Who was lying?
And so much for 'once in a generation'
Who was lying?
Why would we want that when we could have a white elephant?
Der Trump is back in Illinois this afternoon, so expect more trouble...
A very interesting scenario, which would make quite a lot of sense as a long-term move an given the stark differences between the Cape and the rest of SA (whether it would include northern Cape as well is an interesting question).
Doubtless in such a scenario it would act as a safe haven for those who felt uncomfortable in the rump SA as well - a kind of reverse Great Trek might occur. Some of the many Saffers in the UK might return to a well-run Cape Republic as well...
Build a modern line for the long distance passengers and free up capacity on the old line. Not rocket science.
You do not appear to realise that we are not independent and do not have any control of the UK budget.
Come back 5 or 10 years after independence and you can gloat then , till then try to think how the UK government be so absolute crap that they have got Scotland into such a hole.
How is London going to turn things round , can you tell me.
@JamieRoss7: Stewart Hosie on #euref: "No matter how England votes, we are staying in." #democracy
The current self-drive car schemes are very much smoke and mirrors. Lots of great, promising tech being used in very limited circumstances. I personally don't think we'll get them as 'good' as cars driven by a good, alert human driver without the tech being AI-complete, especially for good object recognition. And we haven't developed anything AI-complete yet.
In the meantime, the need for moving large volumes of people point-to-point is proving increasingly necessary, as can be seen from the rise in passenger numbers. Not doing what is needed because there *may* be disruptive technology sometime in the future is not good planning.
Instead if we worked towards a future where essentially our roads didn't have human driven cars, instead effectively road trains of these automated vehicles. So instead of calling an Uber, you called an automated pod, be it single or shared.
PS , I think you mean the UK spends more than it raises, they make all the decisions at present.
So if you want more capacity on existing lines that have already been much upgraded, expect fewer local services, and even for local stations to be closed.
Hmmm sounds a little like the kind of reasoning that kept us using steam trains for many years past their sell-by date.
The ridiculous price tag of HS2 is the key issue though. It can't be justified as a use of resources when there are so many pressing improvements needed elsewhere on the transport network. The same funds, spread over a number of these projects, would yield far greater gains. HS2 is a vanity project.
For example the only HS2 station in the East Midlands will be halfway between Nottingham and Derby. Convenient for nearly no-one in the East Midlands. It would take as long to get there from Leicester as it currently takes to get to St Pancras. And the East Midlands at least has a track!
How many journeys actually start at Euston and go to Brum without a journey at either end?
We have not. We have 'solved' the ability to do it on a small subset of roads that have been fully researched and programmed into the car. I can get in a car and drive on unfamiliar roads. The autonomous cars we have at the moment struggle at this. I can drive in most weathers. Autonomous cars have trouble with a little rain, yet alone snow.
As I said before, smoke and mirrors.
It's fine saying we should ban all human drivers and only allow autonomous drivers on the road, but that ignores pedestrians, animals, road flaws, etc, etc. Autonomous cars have to be able to manage the unexpected.
But it is interesting imagining the use-cases when the tech is perfected. The way I see it, we will not own them, unless we are rich. Instead, if I want to do a journey I'll go online and a website will give me various alternatives based on speed and cost. Say I wanted to go from here, just outside Cambridge, to Wimbledon. It may offer me a drive direct, but that would cost more due to congestion on the roads. Alternatively, it may offer me a cheaper, but slightly longer, journey to Cambridge station, where I board a train to London, where another autonomous car will be waiting to whisk me to my destination.
I'll be allowed to choose based on cost and time. If I alter my time, (e.g. outside of rush hour), then I might get a cheaper journey. Alternatively, if I'm commuting then I can book in advance and get priority on the roads.
Basically, autonomous cars will be part of a fully-integrated transport system.
This is not a dig at Scotland by the way. It's more I wouldn't want to start at this moment in time with that percentage of structural deficit...
:off-to-t'pub:
PS both Ireland and Iceland were in much worse positions just a few years ago and after a small amount of hardship they are over it, it can be done but never when you are shackled to a huge partner who does not care.
Of course a few examples of what Scotland is accounted as paying for within the GERS figures might have been helpful not just the interest on the national debt, but HS2, Trident, Hinkley Point might have been useful as illustrations of benign cuts in expenditure. However she was in good command of the key aspects of the case, kept calm and made Neil look a bit blustering.
The most interesting aspect of the Neil interview was that Sturgeon stated austerity would be needed if Scotland were to become independent. That's a significant change and a clear admission the SNP has been telling porkies.
And third in Florida...
I presume this is getting people to remove masks before they have committed any crime.
It's more choice and more trains. And it's not as if the existing rail network is being forgotten: Leicester's line is being electrified in the next few years, further improving journey times that (from memory) were improved just a year or two ago.
For potential advantages of released capacity to Leicester, see Network Rail's 'Better Connections' report.
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/improvements/high-speed-rail/better-connections-options-for-the-integration-of-high-speed-2.pdf
"UK governments have had 300 years to get Scotland into a healthy shape, but it’s somehow Scotland’s fault that it is a mess"
Can anyone explain that one.
https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedAndrew/status/708813827962511361
As a side issue, IMO the real value to companies of autonomous cars will be in the data sets.
I have seen mooted:
- Rise in threshold 40p rate
- Cutting 45p rate
- Quicker than expected rise in National Insurance
- Stealth taxes
Looks like the pension changes are dead so money has to come from somewhere. CGT would be nice but Ozzy needs the oldies on side for the referendum, so I expect some combination of stealth taxes, welfare cuts and possibly a small raise of the 40p threshold.
That'll sit nicely alongside a rise in the 40p threshold.
I am struggling to see how he can shore up his own position among the Tory core vote without doing something horrid.
If you want to bet on him coming 3rd or 4th, I'll lay you as much as you want at evens.
https://dougwead.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/how-the-establishment-will-now-try-to-steal-the-nomination-from-donald-trump/
Looks like Cruz is up to five states with a majority of delegates and Rubio to two. Enough states in the West for Cruz to still make it to eight. Problem is if it is just Trump and Cruz who make the benchmark then it will easy for Trump to reach the simple majority as Rule 40 prohibits the recording of any delegates won by candidates who failed to meet the eight-state threshold. Even if Rubio and Kasich win their winner-take-all home states of Florida and Ohio, respectively, on March 15, it will be a formidable challenge in a four-man race for them to win a majority of delegates in eight states without a strong swing of support in their favor. So, it is not entirely out of the question that Trump alone or perhaps Trump and Cruz could end up being the only nominees at the convention, with all the Rubio and Kasich delegates effectively set to the side uncounted.
This outcome would mean that the magic figure – a simple majority – to win the nomination would drop below the stated requirement of 1,237 delegates. The practical effect of Rule 40, in wiping out the delegates won by candidates who cannot meet the threshold, makes a first-ballot victory a virtual certainty if there are only one or two candidates who are able to get their names placed in nomination.
Of course, there is the possibility that Republican Party leaders, who are mounting a frantic stop-Trump movement, might move to modify Rule 40 before the convention. North Dakota National Committeeman Curly Haugland, a member of the RNC Rules Committee, told The Daily Caller on Tuesday that there will be an attempt to change Rule 40 to open the convention to any candidate who has won any delegates.
Such a rule change, however, would have to be placed before the convention, meaning that it would need a majority of the delegates to pass, a difficult hurdle if Trump controls most of the votes. But if he doesn’t, the maneuver could open a path for denying him the nomination on the first ballot and then steering the prize to another candidate on subsequent ballots, i.e., a “brokered” convention.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34782082
The post war period grew globally due to reconstruction and the baby boom. But the UK fell behind the rest of the developed world due to our adoption of socialism. That has since been largely reversed.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-choosiness-of-the-unemployed-academic-evidence-on-voluntary-unemployment-in-the-uk/
Dear Leader Ruth is wasting a lot of time and effort combating something that isn't going to happen then.
Never seen the Unionist press and Ruth so off message.
London to Toton at 200 mph. Toton to Nottingham at 20 mph!
While at present it is possible to travel to Nottingham from St Pancras in 90 minutes at present, with no change.
In the East Midlands we have an excellent service to St Pancras, with onwards connections to the continent. The HS2 service will be more expensive and less convenient.
Never seen the Unionist press and Ruth so off message.
The way to ensure something doesn't happen is by combating it. It doesn't mean Ruth is off message it means her message is winning.
Never seen the Unionist press and Ruth so off message.
'Look, squirrel, please don't anyone ask me why I supported taking £7b out of the Scottish budget.'
Probably overstates Trump but this poll has him beating HRC 49 to 42 in a state Romney won 50 to 48. Would imply Virgina would go GOP too.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/surveyusa-high-point-university-24055
Roger Stone says the incident in Chicago was a contrived event.
https://twitter.com/RogerJStoneJr/status/708771311321874432
The sanction system was used for less frequently than it should have been and even then the system is designed to protect children, so lazy parents still get supported for the sake of the children.
Claimants claim-hop as well. Jumping from the dole register to the doctor's surgery.
An incredible 1 in 6 people in Glasgow East are 'disabled' using claimant count numbers to define them.
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD