On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.
'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf
This gives total gross Scottish EU annual payments of GBP 1.175-1.355 billion
For the cohesion funds, the EU process is that, in its 7-year budget "More than half of the budget – €182.2 billion – has been set aside for less developed regions, which have a GDP of less than 75 % of the EU-27 average. €35 billion has been allocated to transition regions, which have a GDP of between 75 % and 90 % of the EU average, and €54 billion to more developed regions which a GDP of more than 90 % of the EU average."
Scotland gets a share of the UK's developed area funds of Euro 800 million pa (3 out of 30 benefiting regions), so say Euro 80 million pa and its share (1 region of 10) of the Euro 350 million pa transition region funding, so say Euro 35 pa. For round numbers, lets say the two come to GBP 100 million pa.
EU disbursements to the UK under CAP (if I am reading the tables correctly) was around Euro 7 billion in 2014, so Scotland's share of that was probably around GBP 500 million.
I can't calculate a definitive number, but my best guess is that an independent Scotland would be a modest, not major, net contributor to the EU budget at around GBP 575-755 million pa.
Edit: oops, forgot the million in the last sentence.
MTim, Many thanks for that piece of work, very impressive and most unlike the usual answers we see on here re Scotland just being a basket case.
When one feels a bit irked, one simply casts one's mind back to a 250/1 winner one recently tipped, and all is well.
Every dog has his day .... woof woof ....
Meanwhile ....
News reaches me that Charlie Falconer has decided to resign once Michael Gove finishes his launch speech or whenever malcolmg praises the Scottish Tories, whichever is the sooner ....
Tricky call ....
By the way what is this meme about Charlie? I've been too busy to follow all the news
We are awaiting news of his resignation. Long overdue...
Is that all?
I'd assumed he'd done something silly like resigned from one of his jobs but not the other
Yeah but, "xMP" is quicker to write.
Technically XMPMPMPXX: failed once, won three times, then failed twice.
I'll likely try to follow F1 still when it becomes entirely Sky, but it's possible I'll stop or shift my attention to some other motorsport.
We don't have Sky and won't have Sky.
I havew found with cricket that there are some internet channels that you can watch if things get exciting, albeit with some degredation.
You only need to watch the start and then watch the highlights later - unless you want a nap in which case try watching the cars go round the circuit time after time in the same order.
@MichaelLCrick: Andrea Leadsom has been an MP 6 years; junior minister 2 years. She'd be least politically experienced PM since William Pitt the Younger
No problem
She nailed her colours to the mast, then realised the error of her ways and began a journey to idealogical purity.
What else does a PM need?
Cameron was a minister junior or otherwise for no years at all before he became PM.
@MichaelLCrick: Andrea Leadsom has been an MP 6 years; junior minister 2 years. She'd be least politically experienced PM since William Pitt the Younger
No problem
She nailed her colours to the mast, then realised the error of her ways and began a journey to idealogical purity.
What else does a PM need?
Was Blair a minister of any kind before he became PM? I think not.
So Leadsom would be the least experienced since Blair.
Because it's the first step towards a pan-EU Inland Revenue service, and pan-EU taxation.
What does it matter? We are Leaving.
Yes yes. But the policy was developed three months ago and kept quiet until after the vote, it should have been mentioned before the vote, and would potentially have extended that 2% lead a bit further
@MichaelLCrick: Andrea Leadsom has been an MP 6 years; junior minister 2 years. She'd be least politically experienced PM since William Pitt the Younger
No problem
She nailed her colours to the mast, then realised the error of her ways and began a journey to idealogical purity.
What else does a PM need?
Was Blair a minister of any kind before he became PM? I think not.
So Leadsom would be the least experienced since Blair.
Brexit? A mere trifle. A far more serious danger is almost upon us. Apparently The Great British Bake Off is exiting the BBC. The sky is falling!
Surely Bake Off's transfer to ITV is official government policy as laid down by Culture Secretary and Gove-backer, John Whittingdale?
Whiitingdale just saved the BBC for at least a decade by changing the rules wrt watching via the Internet and iPlayer.
Perhaps some thanks should be in order, rather than the stupidity you wrote.
How the BBC will collect £100+ per year from mobile phone users puzzles me, unless they hire GCHQ. It only seems viable in the internet age if it's funded from general taxation, which can't easily be evaded (several countries seem to do this). BBC3 has a Youtube channel; do we now have to buy a licence to watch Youtube?!
It's a mess, and note I said they saved it for a decade or more, not forever.
The BBC was formed on the cutting edge of technology (*). It's technology is keeping up somewhat with the cutting edge; it's management and particularly its income stream is not.
If the BBC was sensible they would have been addressing this for the previous round of negotiations, not this one. Instead they put their fingers in their ears, and have only in the ;ast year or two started talking about the elephant in the room.
A move to general taxation would drastically alter the relationship between the BBC and the public.
(*) And has some great techies.
They are still dreaming. People use iplayer because its free. If iplayer starts to cost, the vast majority of people will move to a less legal free source. Most youngsters these days seem to feel that all content should be free and look aghast if you suggest they pay for it, not sure how they expect the content creator to pay their mortgage but there you go - iplayers loss will be bit torrents gain.
Well, yes. Enforcement is a massive issue now that transmission is over a multitude of mechanisms rather than just RF.
Which is why the BBC want to move towards a general taxation model. And why, if it applies to the BBC alone, it should be resisted.
Overall the Tories lead on 36% with Labour on 30% the LDs on 8% and UKIP on 16%.
May is preferred as next Tory leader by 43% of voters as a whole, 60% of Tory voters and 46% of Tory members. Gove is second with 8% of all voters, 10% of Tories and 18% of members, Leadsom is third with 8% of all voters, 6% of Tories and 7% of members.
In terms of the Labour leadership Burnham is preferred as next Labour leader by 12% of all voters and 17% of Labour voters, Benn is second with 11% of all voters and 8% of Labour voters and Umunna is third with 10% of all voters and 13% of Labour voters. Eagle is fifth on 4% with all voters behind Cooper but ahead of McDonnell, Kendall, Jarvis and Smith. With Labour voters she ties with McDonnell on 5% https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1381284/theresa-mays-winning-high-stakes-gamble-as-60-of-tories-say-she-should-be-the-next-pm/
It's a shame YouGov didn't include Burnham in their leader poll last week. if Eagle is 10% behind Corbyn, Burnham might have been closer.
Presumably a pan-European (or pan-World) tax number would simply work in exactly the same way IBAN works for inter-bank transfers. (Did you know that your bank account has a unique EU-reference? Or, more specifically, a unique world reference.)
So, everyone would have their own country tax code. And then there'd be a two or three digit country code in front of it. We could even use ISO dialling codes.
My EU tax code would therefore be something like: 44JD223134565. Or, indeed, my unique world tax code.
I'm struggling with the outrage here, guys.
I had a middle eastern friend who came to this country. After going to university and working here for 15 years he then went to work in the middle east but made sure he was not resident in any country.
The last I heard from him he wondered if I would like to go 50/50 to buy a 250 room hotel in this country. Way out of my league. Shows the disadvantage of being resident somewhere and subject to tax.
@MichaelLCrick: Andrea Leadsom has been an MP 6 years; junior minister 2 years. She'd be least politically experienced PM since William Pitt the Younger
No problem
She nailed her colours to the mast, then realised the error of her ways and began a journey to idealogical purity.
What else does a PM need?
Was Blair a minister of any kind before he became PM? I think not.
So Leadsom would be the least experienced since Blair.
We can't have it both ways - 'never had a proper job', and 'not enough time in politics' are generally mutually exclusive unless you're part of the Labour front bench.
Presumably a pan-European (or pan-World) tax number would simply work in exactly the same way IBAN works for inter-bank transfers. (Did you know that your bank account has a unique EU-reference? Or, more specifically, a unique world reference.)
So, everyone would have their own country tax code. And then there'd be a two or three digit country code in front of it. We could even use ISO dialling codes.
My EU tax code would therefore be something like: 44JD223134565. Or, indeed, my unique world tax code.
I'm struggling with the outrage here, guys.
I had a middle eastern friend who came to this country. After going to university and working here for 15 years he then went to work in the middle east but made sure he was not resident in any country.
The last I heard from him he wondered if I would like to go 50/50 to buy a 250 room hotel in this country. Way out of my league. Shows the disadvantage of being resident somewhere and subject to tax.
Because it's the first step towards a pan-EU Inland Revenue service, and pan-EU taxation.
It seems a pretty dumb way of achieving that. You wouldn't have two sets of PAYE for every country, it would make no sense. Instead you'd have government required to hand over 1p in the Pound (or Euro) for income tax, and move to "harmonise" bands.
The major impact of a common system for taxpayer identification is that it makes it hard to avoid taxes by allowing governments to require citizens to list all their tax codes by country.
Indeed, I would bet that the US will come on side with this pretty quick. It's a great way of forcing people to disclose.
Indigo. Are you still optimistic for the UK's economic prospects in the short, medium and long term? Also what arrangement are you hoping the UK achieve with Europe post Brexit?
@MichaelLCrick: Andrea Leadsom has been an MP 6 years; junior minister 2 years. She'd be least politically experienced PM since William Pitt the Younger
No problem
She nailed her colours to the mast, then realised the error of her ways and began a journey to idealogical purity.
Brexit? A mere trifle. A far more serious danger is almost upon us. Apparently The Great British Bake Off is exiting the BBC. The sky is falling!
Surely Bake Off's transfer to ITV is official government policy as laid down by Culture Secretary and Gove-backer, John Whittingdale?
Whiitingdale just saved the BBC for at least a decade by changing the rules wrt watching via the Internet and iPlayer.
Perhaps some thanks should be in order, rather than the stupidity you wrote.
How the BBC will collect £100+ per year from mobile phone users puzzles me, unless they hire GCHQ. It only seems viable in the internet age if it's funded from general taxation, which can't easily be evaded (several countries seem to do this). BBC3 has a Youtube channel; do we now have to buy a licence to watch Youtube?!
It's a mess, and note I said they saved it for a decade or more, not forever.
The BBC was formed on the cutting edge of technology (*). It's technology is keeping up somewhat with the cutting edge; it's management and particularly its income stream is not.
If the BBC was sensible they would have been addressing this for the previous round of negotiations, not this one. Instead they put their fingers in their ears, and have only in the ;ast year or two started talking about the elephant in the room.
A move to general taxation would drastically alter the relationship between the BBC and the public.
(*) And has some great techies.
They are still dreaming. People use iplayer because its free. If iplayer starts to cost, the vast majority of people will move to a less legal free source. Most youngsters these days seem to feel that all content should be free and look aghast if you suggest they pay for it, not sure how they expect the content creator to pay their mortgage but there you go - iplayers loss will be bit torrents gain.
Well, yes. Enforcement is a massive issue now that transmission is over a multitude of mechanisms rather than just RF.
Which is why the BBC want to move towards a general taxation model. And why, if it applies to the BBC alone, it should be resisted.
On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.
'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf
This gives total gross Scottish EU annual payments of GBP 1.175-1.355 billion
For the cohesion funds, the EU process is that, in its 7-year budget "More than half of the budget – €182.2 billion – has been set aside for less developed regions, which have a GDP of less than 75 % of the EU-27 average. €35 billion has been allocated to transition regions, which have a GDP of between 75 % and 90 % of the EU average, and €54 billion to more developed regions which a GDP of more than 90 % of the EU average."
To calculate Scotland's expected receipts, we'd have to know how Scotland's regions are drawn and where each lies in terms of GDP per capita ratio to EU average GDP per capita.
EU disbursements to the UK under CAP (if I am reading the tables correctly) was around Euro 7 billion in 2014, so Scotland's share of that was probably around GBP 500 million.
I can't calculate a definitive number, as I can't estimate what Scotland would get under the Cohesion Funds. But all told, my best guess is that an independent Scotland would be a modest, not major, net contributor to the EU budget.
So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,
Works well for the strapline.
Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.
Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.
Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.
Vote Yes in May 2017
I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?
Rob, when will you come into the real world and stop believing the Mail and Express
Brexit? A mere trifle. A far more serious danger is almost upon us. Apparently The Great British Bake Off is exiting the BBC. The sky is falling!
Surely Bake Off's transfer to ITV is official government policy as laid down by Culture Secretary and Gove-backer, John Whittingdale?
Whiitingdale just saved the BBC for at least a decade by changing the rules wrt watching via the Internet and iPlayer.
Perhaps some thanks should be in order, rather than the stupidity you wrote.
How the BBC will collect £100+ per year from mobile phone users puzzles me, unless they hire GCHQ. It only seems viable in the internet age if it's funded from general taxation, which can't easily be evaded (several countries seem to do this). BBC3 has a Youtube channel; do we now have to buy a licence to watch Youtube?!
It's a mess, and note I said they saved it for a decade or more, not forever.
The BBC was formed on the cutting edge of technology (*). It's technology is keeping up somewhat with the cutting edge; it's management and particularly its income stream is not.
If the BBC was sensible they would have been addressing this for the previous round of negotiations, not this one. Instead they put their fingers in their ears, and have only in the ;ast year or two started talking about the elephant in the room.
A move to general taxation would drastically alter the relationship between the BBC and the public.
(*) And has some great techies.
They are still dreaming. People use iplayer because its free. If iplayer starts to cost, the vast majority of people will move to a less legal free source. Most youngsters these days seem to feel that all content should be free and look aghast if you suggest they pay for it, not sure how they expect the content creator to pay their mortgage but there you go - iplayers loss will be bit torrents gain.
If I just want to gawp at something I'll watch Twitch or YouTube.
I'll buy box sets if I'm absolutely positive I'll enjoy a series, or increasingly, the HD streaming version on Amazon.
On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.
'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf
This gives total gross Scottish EU annual payments of GBP 1.175-1.355 billion
For the cohesion funds, the EU process is that, in its 7-year budget "More than half of the budget – €182.2 billion – has been set aside for less developed regions, which have a GDP of less than 75 % of the EU-27 average. €35 billion has been allocated to transition regions, which have a GDP of between 75 % and 90 % of
So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,
Works well for the strapline.
Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.
Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.
Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.
Vote Yes in May 2017
I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?
I assumed it was a joke....
How about a deal with Scotland? Yes you can have a second referendum but to make sure that this is an even playing field free of UK Govt bribes, it will mean an end to the Barnet formula win or lose, yes or no. Thus your scottish voters are no longer bribed to vote to stay in the UK. You can then vote to be independent, get the Euro, slash govt spending to meet EU rules and pay their EU charges. Also lose control of fishing to the EU etc etc... Seems like a good deal to me. A new Pledge.
On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.
'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf
This gives total gross Scottish EU annual payments of GBP 1.175-1.355 billion
For the cohesion funds, the EU process is that, in its 7-year budget "More than half of the budget – €182.2 billion – has been set aside for less developed regions, which have a GDP of less than 75 % of the EU-27 average. €35 billion has been allocated to transition regions, which have a GDP of between 75 % and 90 % of the EU average, and €54 billion to more developed regions which a GDP of more than 90 % of the EU average."
To calculate Scotland's expected receipts, we'd have to know how Scotland's regions are drawn and where each lies in terms of GDP per capita ratio to EU average GDP per capita.
EU disbursements to the UK under CAP (if I am reading the tables correctly) was around Euro 7 billion in 2014, so Scotland's share of that was probably around GBP 500 million.
I can't calculate a definitive number, as I can't estimate what Scotland would get under the Cohesion Funds. But all told, my best guess is that an independent Scotland would be a modest, not major, net contributor to the EU budget.
So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,
Works well for the strapline.
Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.
Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.
Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.
Vote Yes in May 2017
I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?
Rob, when will you come into the real world and stop believing the Mail and Express
And Scottish government figures, and other ridiculous sources such as that. Piffle against the might of the SNP and their promises, well sourced figures are just talking us dooooooon!
@MichaelLCrick: Andrea Leadsom has been an MP 6 years; junior minister 2 years. She'd be least politically experienced PM since William Pitt the Younger
No problem
She nailed her colours to the mast, then realised the error of her ways and began a journey to idealogical purity.
What else does a PM need?
Was Blair a minister of any kind before he became PM? I think not.
So Leadsom would be the least experienced since Blair.
On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.
'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf
This gives total gross Scottish EU annual payments of GBP 1.175-1.355 billion
For the cohesion funds, the EU process is that, in its 7-year budget "More than half of the budget – €182.2 billion – has been set aside for less developed regions, which have a GDP of less than 75 % of the EU-27 average. €35 billion has been allocated to transition regions, which have a GDP of between 75 % and 90 % of the EU average, and €54 billion to more developed regions which a GDP of more than 90 % of the EU average."
To calculate Scotland's expected receipts, we'd have to know how Scotland's regions are drawn and where each lies in terms of GDP per capita ratio to EU average GDP per capita.
EU disbursements to the UK under CAP (if I am reading the tables correctly) was around Euro 7 billion in 2014, so Scotland's share of that was probably around GBP 500 million.
I can't calculate a definitive number, as I can't estimate what Scotland would get under the Cohesion Funds. But all told, my best guess is that an independent Scotland would be a modest, not major, net contributor to the EU budget.
So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,
Works well for the strapline.
Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.
Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.
Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.
Vote Yes in May 2017
I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?
@MichaelLCrick: Andrea Leadsom has been an MP 6 years; junior minister 2 years. She'd be least politically experienced PM since William Pitt the Younger
No problem
She nailed her colours to the mast, then realised the error of her ways and began a journey to idealogical purity.
What else does a PM need?
Was Blair a minister of any kind before he became PM? I think not.
So Leadsom would be the least experienced since Blair.
On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.
'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf
This gives total gross Scottish EU annual payments of GBP 1.175-1.355 billion
For the cohesion funds, the EU process is that, in its 7-year budget "More than half of the budget – €182.2 billion – has been set aside for less developed regions, which have a GDP of less than 75 % of the EU-27 average. €35 billion has been allocated to transition regions, which have a GDP of between 75 % and 90 % of
So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,
Works well for the strapline.
Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.
Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.
Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.
Vote Yes in May 2017
I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?
I assumed it was a joke....
How about a deal with Scotland? Yes you can have a second referendum but to make sure that this is an even playing field free of UK Govt bribes, it will mean an end to the Barnet formula win or lose, yes or no. Thus your scottish voters are no longer bribed to vote to stay in the UK. You can then vote to be independent, get the Euro, slash govt spending to meet EU rules and pay their EU charges. Also lose control of fishing to the EU etc etc... Seems like a good deal to me. A new Pledge.
Ha Ha Ha , your village is searching for you
Why are you so damned rude?
Every other comment you post is belittling someone or other.
On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.
'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf
This gives total gross Scottish EU annual payments of GBP 1.175-1.355 billion
For the cohesion funds, the EU process is that, in its 7-year budget "More than half of the budget – €182.2 billion – has been set aside for less developed regions, which have a GDP of less than 75 % of the EU-27 average. €35 billion has been allocated to transition regions, which have a GDP of between 75 % and 90 % of
So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,
Works well for the strapline.
Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.
Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.
Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.
Vote Yes in May 2017
I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?
I assumed it was a joke....
How about a deal with Scotland? Yes you can have a second referendum but to make sure that this is an even playing field free of UK Govt bribes, it will mean an end to the Barnet formula win or lose, yes or no. Thus your scottish voters are no longer bribed to vote to stay in the UK. You can then vote to be independent, get the Euro, slash govt spending to meet EU rules and pay their EU charges. Also lose control of fishing to the EU etc etc... Seems like a good deal to me. A new Pledge.
Ha Ha Ha , your village is searching for you
Why are you so damned rude?
Every other comment you post is belittling someone or other.
He is wrong, and he knows it. Where do you go from there but to be rude?
On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.
'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf
This gives total gross Scottish EU annual payments of GBP 1.175-1.355 billion
For the cohesion funds, the EU process is that, in its 7-year budget "More than half of the budget – €182.2 billion – has been set aside for less developed regions, which have a GDP of less than 75 % of the EU-27 average. €35 billion has been allocated to transition regions, which have a GDP of between 75 % and 90 % of the EU average, and €54 billion to more developed regions which a GDP of more than 90 % of the EU average."
To calculate Scotland's expected receipts, we'd have to know how Scotland's regions are drawn and where each lies in terms of GDP per capita ratio to EU average GDP per capita.
Works well for the strapline.
Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.
Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.
Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.
Vote Yes in May 2017
I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?
Rob, when will you come into the real world and stop believing the Mail and Express
And Scottish government figures, and other ridiculous sources such as that. Piffle against the might of the SNP and their promises, well sourced figures are just talking us dooooooon!
I defy anyone to be able to really split out the economics in the UK, so much of our cash disappears into unknown buckets and is spent on Westminster follies who would know what the reality is. For sure if all the UK vanity projects were dumped we would be seriously better off than we are now deficit or not.
On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.
'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf
I can't calculate a definitive number, as I can't estimate what Scotland would get under the Cohesion Funds. But all told, my best guess is that an independent Scotland would be a modest, not major, net contributor to the EU budget.
So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,
Works well for the strapline.
Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.
Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.
Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.
Vote Yes in May 2017
I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?
Rob, when will you come into the real world and stop believing the Mail and Express
And Scottish government figures, and other ridiculous sources such as that. Piffle against the might of the SNP and their promises, well sourced figures are just talking us dooooooon!
We cannot have it both ways. There's no doubt that Brexit is daft on purely economic grounds - there's a price to be paid. That price will continue for several years.
Having made that decision, we can't now just turn on the Scots and tell them that they're committing economic suicide - that's just rerunning the old too puir, too wee, too daft crap that people have peddled for years.
Scotland should have a second Sindy referendum. I do think it would be wise to wait until we understand the UK's exit strategy. If it's going to be pure WTO, for example, I'd expect the Nationalists to win handily.
On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.
'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf
This gives total gross Scottish EU annual payments of GBP 1.175-1.355 billion
For the cohesion funds, the EU process is that, in its 7-year budget "More than half of the budget – €182.2 billion – has been set aside for less developed regions, which have a GDP of less than 75 % of the EU-27 average. €35 billion has been allocated to transition regions, which have a GDP of between 75 % and 90 % of
So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,
Works well for the strapline.
Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.
Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.
Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.
Vote Yes in May 2017
I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?
I assumed it was a joke....
How about a deal with Scotland? Yes you can have a second referendum but to make sure that this is an even playing field free of UK Govt bribes, it will mean an end to the Barnet formula win or lose, yes or no. Thus your scottish voters are no longer bribed to vote to stay in the UK. You can then vote to be independent, get the Euro, slash govt spending to meet EU rules and pay their EU charges. Also lose control of fishing to the EU etc etc... Seems like a good deal to me. A new Pledge.
Ha Ha Ha , your village is searching for you
Why are you so damned rude?
Every other comment you post is belittling someone or other.
On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.
'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf
This gives total gross Scottish EU annual payments of GBP 1.175-1.355 billion
For the cohesion funds, the EU process is that, in its 7-year budget "More than half of the budget – €182.2 billion – has been set aside for less developed regions, which have a GDP of less than 75 % of the EU-27 average. €35 billion has been allocated to transition regions, which have a GDP of between 75 % and 90 % of
So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,
Works well for the strapline.
Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.
Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.
Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.
Vote Yes in May 2017
I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?
I assumed it was a joke....
How about a deal with Scotland? Yes you can have a second referendum but to make sure that this is an even playing field free of UK Govt bribes, it will mean an end to the Barnet formula win or lose, yes or no. Thus your scottish voters are no longer bribed to vote to stay in the UK. You can then vote to be independent, get the Euro, slash govt spending to meet EU rules and pay their EU charges. Also lose control of fishing to the EU etc etc... Seems like a good deal to me. A new Pledge.
Ha Ha Ha , your village is searching for you
Why are you so damned rude?
Every other comment you post is belittling someone or other.
He is wrong, and he knows it. Where do you go from there but to be rude?
another sourpuss lacking any sense of fun, bet you boys worry about your pigtails falling out
I defy anyone to be able to really split out the economics in the UK, so much of our cash disappears into unknown buckets and is spent on Westminster follies who would know what the reality is. For sure if all the UK vanity projects were dumped we would be seriously better off than we are now deficit or not.
I doubt you will even read it, but go ahead and have a try at opening your mind for once. In one paragraph you make at least three wild claims with no actual basis to try and muddy the waters, after several hours of strawmanning people about "talking Scotland dooooooon!". If you are the typical SNP voter it explains much.
On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.
'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf
This gives total gross Scottish EU annual payments of GBP 1.175-1.355 billion
For the cohesion funds, the EU process is that, in its 7-year budget "More than half of the budget – €182.2 billion – has been set aside for less developed regions, which have a GDP of less than 75 % of the EU-27 average. €35 billion has been allocated to transition regions, which have a GDP of between 75 % and 90 % of
So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,
Works well for the strapline.
Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.
Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.
Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.
Vote Yes in May 2017
I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?
I assumed it was a joke....
How about a deal with Scotland? Yes you can have a second referendum but to make sure that this is an even playing field free of UK Govt bribes, it will mean an end to the Barnet formula win or lose, yes or no. Thus your scottish voters are no longer bribed to vote to stay in the UK. You can then vote to be independent, get the Euro, slash govt spending to meet EU rules and pay their EU charges. Also lose control of fishing to the EU etc etc... Seems like a good deal to me. A new Pledge.
Ha Ha Ha , your village is searching for you
Why are you so damned rude?
Every other comment you post is belittling someone or other.
He is wrong, and he knows it. Where do you go from there but to be rude?
another sourpuss lacking any sense of fun, bet you boys worry about your pigtails falling out
Oh, you are trying to be funny. Great. I thought you were just being aggressively stupid.
On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.
'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf
I can't calculate a definitive number, as I can't estimate what Scotland would get under the Cohesion Funds. But all told, my best guess is that an independent Scotland would be a modest, not major, net contributor to the EU budget.
So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,
Works well for the strapline.
Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.
Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.
Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.
Vote Yes in May 2017
I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?
Rob, when will you come into the real world and stop believing the Mail and Express
And Scottish government figures, and other ridiculous sources such as that. Piffle against the might of the SNP and their promises, well sourced figures are just talking us dooooooon!
We cannot have it both ways. There's no doubt that Brexit is daft on purely economic grounds - there's a price to be paid. That price will continue for several years.
Having made that decision, we can't now just turn on the Scots and tell them that they're committing economic suicide - that's just rerunning the old too puir, too wee, too daft crap that people have peddled for years.
Scotland should have a second Sindy referendum. I do think it would be wise to wait until we understand the UK's exit strategy. If it's going to be pure WTO, for example, I'd expect the Nationalists to win handily.
Well said John, amazing how they are happy for UK to vote out of EU but don not want to give Scotland the opportunity to decide on their own whether they agree, especially given the result in Scotland.
Because it's the first step towards a pan-EU Inland Revenue service, and pan-EU taxation.
What does it matter? We are Leaving.
Or are we? Dun. Dun. Dun.
Well so far we seem not to be, what with all the Leavers suddenly becoming converts to the EEA with freedom of movement etc
Can't see the point myself...
Leavers on here are not remotely representative. I'm not even representative of my own family, Brexiteers all (bar four black sheep ). Hence we can't claim to speak for anybody else but ourselves.
My overall sense of the majority of Leavers on here: affluent, well educated sovereignistas who, while wishing to abandon the European political project, understand it's going to take time to disentangle ourselves and would rather not hurt the economy any more than necessary while doing so.
On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.
'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf
I can't calculate a definitive number, as I can't estimate what Scotland would get under the Cohesion Funds. But all told, my best guess is that an independent Scotland would be a modest, not major, net contributor to the EU budget.
So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,
Works well for the strapline.
Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.
Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.
Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.
Vote Yes in May 2017
I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?
Rob, when will you come into the real world and stop believing the Mail and Express
And Scottish government figures, and other ridiculous sources such as that. Piffle against the might of the SNP and their promises, well sourced figures are just talking us dooooooon!
We cannot have it both ways. There's no doubt that Brexit is daft on purely economic grounds - there's a price to be paid. That price will continue for several years.
Having made that decision, we can't now just turn on the Scots and tell them that they're committing economic suicide - that's just rerunning the old too puir, too wee, too daft crap that people have peddled for years.
Scotland should have a second Sindy referendum. I do think it would be wise to wait until we understand the UK's exit strategy. If it's going to be pure WTO, for example, I'd expect the Nationalists to win handily.
Which is why I was Remain in both, although the Scottish vote I didn't really debate with anyone as I was not a voter.
True, they will have one definitely. But the SNP case on finances is awful, vague and downright mendacious......and at the same time as they criticise Boris et al.
On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.
'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf
This gives total gross Scottish EU annual payments of GBP 1.175-1.355 billion
For the cohesion funds, the EU process is that, in its 7-year budget "More than half of the budget – €182.2 billion – has been set aside for less developed regions, which have a GDP of less than 75 % of the EU-27 average. €35 billion has been allocated to transition regions, which have a GDP of between 75 % and 90 % of
So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,
Works well for the strapline.
Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.
Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.
Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.
Vote Yes in May 2017
I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?
I assumed it was a joke....
How about a deal with Scotland? Yes you can have a second referendum but to make sure that this is an even playing field free of UK Govt bribes, it will mean an end to the Barnet formula win or lose, yes or no. Thus your scottish voters are no longer bribed to vote to stay in the UK. You can then vote to be independent, get the Euro, slash govt spending to meet EU rules and pay their EU charges. Also lose control of fishing to the EU etc etc... Seems like a good deal to me. A new Pledge.
Ha Ha Ha , your village is searching for you
Why are you so damned rude?
Every other comment you post is belittling someone or other.
Jog on and get a sense of humour you saddo
Oh, sorry yes, my fault entirely. I hadn't realised I was dealing with such an incredibly wise man. I humbly beg your forgiveness.
The real pedant in me says that you can't be an ex-MP because you don't change your nature on becoming one. Hence when you lose that role you revert to your former status.
On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.
'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf
This gives total gross Scottish EU annual payments of GBP 1.175-1.355 billion
For the cohesion funds, the EU process is that, in its 7-year budget "More than half of the budget – €182.2 billion – has been set aside for less developed regions, which have a GDP of less than 75 % of the EU-27 average. €35 billion has been allocated to transition regions, which have a GDP of between 75 % and 90 % of
So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,
Works well for the strapline.
Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.
Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.
Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.
Vote Yes in May 2017
I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?
I assumed it was a joke....
How about a deal with Scotland? Yes you can have a second referendum but to make sure that this is an even playing field free of UK Govt bribes, it will mean an end to the Barnet formula win or lose, yes or no. Thus your scottish voters are no longer bribed to vote to stay in the UK. You can then vote to be independent, get the Euro, slash govt spending to meet EU rules and pay their EU charges. Also lose control of fishing to the EU etc etc... Seems like a good deal to me. A new Pledge.
Ha Ha Ha , your village is searching for you
Why are you so damned rude?
Every other comment you post is belittling someone or other.
Jog on and get a sense of humour you saddo
Oh, sorry yes, my fault entirely. I hadn't realised I was dealing with such an incredibly wise man. I humbly beg your forgiveness.
On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.
'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf
I can't calculate a definitive number, as I can't estimate what Scotland would get under the Cohesion Funds. But all told, my best guess is that an independent Scotland would be a modest, not major, net contributor to the EU budget.
So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,
Works well for the strapline.
Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.
Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.
Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.
Vote Yes in May 2017
I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?
Rob, when will you come into the real world and stop believing the Mail and Express
And Scottish government figures, and other ridiculous sources such as that. Piffle against the might of the SNP and their promises, well sourced figures are just talking us dooooooon!
We cannot have it both ways. There's no doubt that Brexit is daft on purely economic grounds - there's a price to be paid. That price will continue for several years.
There isn't just 'doubt' - it's utterly refutable that it's in any way daft. Indeed the black and white on paper figures prove that the daft option would have been to stay in. The only merit in the 'economic disaster' argument being peddled by 'IN' was the prospect that the rest of the world would ignore their own interests in order to shun us and beggar our economy. Thankfully that is falling apart as we speak.
Indigo. Are you still optimistic for the UK's economic prospects in the short, medium and long term? Also what arrangement are you hoping the UK achieve with Europe post Brexit?
Until recently I had great faith in the British people to weather a short term downturn and make the best of the new world, making deals with countries outside the EU for a neutral medium term and improved long term. However given the amount of crying, naysaying and attempts to cling on to nurse I am now not quite so sure, the stiff upper lip and bulldog spirit appear to be long gone.
If I had any confidence that the people would be offered another look at the issue in a decade I could live with the EEA/EFTA approach for now and let people see how they feel about the immigration issue later on. My main concern is that politicians having been given a massive scare are not going to feel inclined to ask the people what they think in future, and so the question is not going to get asked.
I fear there will be increasing civil unrest in the medium term if we stay with Freedom of Movement because frankly politicians are not going to make the changes required to make it work, vis contributory benefits systems, and proper provision on health and schooling. The former because the left and wishywashy Tories will scream blue murder at the merest suggestion, and the later because the British public will never accept the tax rises required to fund it.
Brexit? A mere trifle. A far more serious danger is almost upon us. Apparently The Great British Bake Off is exiting the BBC. The sky is falling!
Surely Bake Off's transfer to ITV is official government policy as laid down by Culture Secretary and Gove-backer, John Whittingdale?
Whiitingdale just saved the BBC for at least a decade by changing the rules wrt watching via the Internet and iPlayer.
Perhaps some thanks should be in order, rather than the stupidity you wrote.
How the BBC will collect £100+ per year from mobile phone users puzzles me, unless they hire GCHQ. It only seems viable in the internet age if it's funded from general taxation, which can't easily be evaded (several countries seem to do this). BBC3 has a Youtube channel; do we now have to buy a licence to watch Youtube?!
It's a mess, and note I said they saved it for a decade or more, not forever.
The BBC was formed on the cutting edge of technology (*). It's technology is keeping up somewhat with the cutting edge; it's management and particularly its income stream is not.
If the BBC was sensible they would have been addressing this for the previous round of negotiations, not this one. Instead they put their fingers in their ears, and have only in the ;ast year or two started talking about the elephant in the room.
A move to general taxation would drastically alter the relationship between the BBC and the public.
(*) And has some great techies.
They are still dreaming. People use iplayer because its free. If iplayer starts to cost, the vast majority of people will move to a less legal free source. Most youngsters these days seem to feel that all content should be free and look aghast if you suggest they pay for it, not sure how they expect the content creator to pay their mortgage but there you go - iplayers loss will be bit torrents gain.
Well, yes. Enforcement is a massive issue now that transmission is over a multitude of mechanisms rather than just RF.
Which is why the BBC want to move towards a general taxation model. And why, if it applies to the BBC alone, it should be resisted.
The BBC can rot in hell next to Gove for me.
There anti Corbyn bias is clear for all to see.
Most of the PLP appears to have an anti-Corbyn bias, how can you reasonably expect anyone else not to!
On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.
'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf
This gives total gross Scottish EU annual payments of GBP 1.175-1.355 billion
For the cohesion funds, the EU process is that, in its 7-year budget "More than half of the budget – €182.2 billion – has been set aside for less developed regions, which have a GDP of less than 75 % of the EU-27 average. €35 billion has been allocated to transition regions, which have a GDP of between 75 % and 90 % of
So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,
Works well for the strapline.
Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.
Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.
Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.
Vote Yes in May 2017
I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?
I assumed it was a joke....
Ha Ha Ha , your village is searching for you
Why are you so damned rude?
Every other comment you post is belittling someone or other.
He is wrong, and he knows it. Where do you go from there but to be rude?
another sourpuss lacking any sense of fun, bet you boys worry about your pigtails falling out
Oh, you are trying to be funny. Great. I thought you were just being aggressively stupid.
Don't be a silly boy, I am never aggressive and am very very intelligent.
Indigo. Are you still optimistic for the UK's economic prospects in the short, medium and long term? Also what arrangement are you hoping the UK achieve with Europe post Brexit?
Until recently I had great faith in the British people to weather a short term downturn and make the best of the new world, making deals with countries outside the EU for a neutral medium term and improved long term. However given the amount of crying, naysaying and attempts to cling on to nurse I am now not quite so sure, the stiff upper lip and bulldog spirit appear to be long gone.
If I had any confidence that the people would be offered another look at the issue in a decade I could live with the EEA/EFTA approach for now and let people see how they feel about the immigration issue later on. My main concern is that politicians having been given a massive scare are not going to feel inclined to ask the people what they think in future, and so the question is not going to get asked.
I fear there will be increasing civil unrest in the medium term if we stay with Freedom of Movement because frankly politicians are not going to make the changes required to make it work, vis contributory benefits systems, and proper provision on health and schooling. The former because the left and wishywashy Tories will scream blue murder at the merest suggestion, and the later because the British public will never accept the tax rises required to fund it.
On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.
'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf
This gives total gross Scottish EU annual payments of GBP 1.175-1.355 billion
For the cohesion funds, the EU process is that, in its 7-year budget "More than half of the budget – €182.2 billion – has been set aside for less developed regions, which have a GDP of less than 75 % of the EU-27 average. €35 billion has been allocated to transition regions, which have a GDP of between 75 % and 90 % of
So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,
Works well for the strapline.
Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.
Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.
Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.
Vote Yes in May 2017
I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?
I assumed it was a joke....
Ha Ha Ha , your village is searching for you
Why are you so damned rude?
Every other comment you post is belittling someone or other.
He is wrong, and he knows it. Where do you go from there but to be rude?
another sourpuss lacking any sense of fun, bet you boys worry about your pigtails falling out
Oh, you are trying to be funny. Great. I thought you were just being aggressively stupid.
Don't be a silly boy, I am never aggressive and am very very intelligent.
On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.
I can't calculate a definitive number, as I can't estimate what Scotland would get under the Cohesion Funds. But all told, my best guess is that an independent Scotland would be a modest, not major, net contributor to the EU budget.
So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,
Works well for the strapline.
Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.
Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.
Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.
Vote Yes in May 2017
I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?
Rob, when will you come into the real world and stop believing the Mail and Express
And Scottish government figures, and other ridiculous sources such as that. Piffle against the might of the SNP and their promises, well sourced figures are just talking us dooooooon!
We cannot have it both ways. There's no doubt that Brexit is daft on purely economic grounds - there's a price to be paid. That price will continue for several years.
Having made that decision, we can't now just turn on the Scots and tell them that they're committing economic suicide - that's just rerunning the old too puir, too wee, too daft crap that people have peddled for years.
Scotland should have a second Sindy referendum. I do think it would be wise to wait until we understand the UK's exit strategy. If it's going to be pure WTO, for example, I'd expect the Nationalists to win handily.
Well said John, amazing how they are happy for UK to vote out of EU but don not want to give Scotland the opportunity to decide on their own whether they agree, especially given the result in Scotland.
Thanks Malcolm. It really isn't just about economics. None of the Brexit models I've seen forecast the UK's GDP will fall - just that the trend growth rate drops by around 0.4%. p.a.
However, if you imagine a 25% absolute decline* (in constant currency), that would put the UK back to 1999, which I don't recall being a blasted, tortured wasteland of famine and despair.
The same concept applies to Scotland. I think an independent Scotland would have a terribly tough time economically in the short term. It couldn't meet the Euro criteria immediately, and I can't see the EU bending its rules again (*cough* Greece). But if that's what people want, there's no reason why it couldn't work in the medium term.
On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.
'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf
This gives total gross Scottish EU annual payments of GBP 1.175-1.355 billion
For the cohesion funds, the EU process is that, in its 7-year budget "More than half of the budget – €182.2 billion – has been set aside for less developed regions, which have a GDP of less than 75 % of the EU-27 average. €35 billion has been allocated to transition regions, which have a GDP of between 75 % and 90 % of
So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,
Works well for the strapline.
Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.
Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.
Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.
Vote Yes in May 2017
I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?
I assumed it was a joke....
Ha Ha Ha , your village is searching for you
Why are you so damned rude?
Every other comment you post is belittling someone or other.
Jog on and get a sense of humour you saddo
Oh, sorry yes, my fault entirely. I hadn't realised I was dealing with such an incredibly wise man. I humbly beg your forgiveness.
You are almost forgiven , at least you have realised the error of your ways.
Indigo. Are you still optimistic for the UK's economic prospects in the short, medium and long term? Also what arrangement are you hoping the UK achieve with Europe post Brexit?
Until recently I had great faith in the British people to weather a short term downturn and make the best of the new world, making deals with countries outside the EU for a neutral medium term and improved long term. However given the amount of crying, naysaying and attempts to cling on to nurse I am now not quite so sure, the stiff upper lip and bulldog spirit appear to be long gone.
If I had any confidence that the people would be offered another look at the issue in a decade I could live with the EEA/EFTA approach for now and let people see how they feel about the immigration issue later on. My main concern is that politicians having been given a massive scare are not going to feel inclined to ask the people what they think in future, and so the question is not going to get asked.
I fear there will be increasing civil unrest in the medium term if we stay with Freedom of Movement because frankly politicians are not going to make the changes required to make it work, vis contributory benefits systems, and proper provision on health and schooling. The former because the left and wishywashy Tories will scream blue murder at the merest suggestion, and the later because the British public will never accept the tax rises required to fund it.
Thanks. So have you got BREMORSE?
Nope. I dont think things will have been much better long term staying in. Indeed I always expected that we would have been forced to leave when the eurozone federalizes over the next 5-10 years or so, only then we would have been that much more integrated and so the economic shock would have been comparatively worse.
When it comes to two uncertain future paths I will take the one that gives people flexibility to change in a changing world without having to ask 27 other countries, and where we can kick out people that make stupid decisions. Personally I think losing the malign influence of the ECJ was almost worth it on its own
The long term predictions of woe assume we won't do deals with anyone else which seems highly unlikely given the queue of Commonwealth and other countries already expressing an interest.
Indigo. Are you still optimistic for the UK's economic prospects in the short, medium and long term? Also what arrangement are you hoping the UK achieve with Europe post Brexit?
Until recently I had great faith in the British people to weather a short term downturn and make the best of the new world, making deals with countries outside the EU for a neutral medium term and improved long term. However given the amount of crying, naysaying and attempts to cling on to nurse I am now not quite so sure, the stiff upper lip and bulldog spirit appear to be long gone.
If I had any confidence that the people would be offered another look at the issue in a decade I could live with the EEA/EFTA approach for now and let people see how they feel about the immigration issue later on. My main concern is that politicians having been given a massive scare are not going to feel inclined to ask the people what they think in future, and so the question is not going to get asked.
I fear there will be increasing civil unrest in the medium term if we stay with Freedom of Movement because frankly politicians are not going to make the changes required to make it work, vis contributory benefits systems, and proper provision on health and schooling. The former because the left and wishywashy Tories will scream blue murder at the merest suggestion, and the later because the British public will never accept the tax rises required to fund it.
The thing is, there has been no planning for post a Leave vote by anyone.
There is no consensus about what Leave means.
There was no realisation that a long period of limbo would have economic consequences.
Before the vote, I repeatedly stated that the choice should be between two concrete proposals. I stated that - failing that - there should be a supplementary question on the ballot paper about the UK's future relationship with the EU.
Without this, anyone claiming to know the will of the British people is lying. No-one knows. And the longer we sit there, with future trade relationships unknown the longer businesses will sit on their hands.
Leaving the EU could be achieved with limited near-term economic consequences. Instead we seem to be going for maximum economic damage.
On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.
I can't calculate a definitive number, as I can't estimate what Scotland would get under the Cohesion Funds. But all told, my best guess is that an independent Scotland would be a modest, not major, net contributor to the EU budget.
So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,
Works well for the strapline.
Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.
Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.
Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.
Vote Yes in May 2017
I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?
Rob, when will you come into the real world and stop believing the Mail and Express
And Scottish government figures, and other ridiculous sources such as that. Piffle against the might of the SNP and their promises, well sourced figures are just talking us dooooooon!
We cannot have it both ways. There's no doubt that Brexit is daft on purely economic grounds - there's a price to be paid. That price will continue for several years.
Having made that decision, we can't now just turn on the Scots and tell them that they're committing economic suicide - that's just rerunning the old too puir, too wee, too daft crap that people have peddled for years.
Scotland should have a second Sindy referendum. I do think it would be wise to wait until we understand the UK's exit strategy. If it's going to be pure WTO, for example, I'd expect the Nationalists to win handily.
Well said John, amazing how they are happy for UK to vote out of EU but don not want to give Scotland the opportunity to decide on their own whether they agree, especially given the result in Scotland.
*I'm not being serious here, so pedants avaunt .
John, for sure and EU being short of the UK wedge will feel the pinch as much if not more so when reality hits it will not be Junker that is doing the negotiating , it may well be a far bigger disaster for them than the UK. On Scotland I want it independent , making their own decisions and it may or may not be better off but at least it will be making its own decisions rather than being forced to follow what ever Westminster wants, which for better or worse is not what Scotland wants nowadays. I doubt we will starve.
Thanks Malcolm. It really isn't just about economics. None of the Brexit models I've seen forecast the UK's GDP will fall - just that the trend growth rate drops by around 0.4%. p.a.
However, if you imagine a 25% absolute decline* (in constant currency), that would put the UK back to 1999, which I don't recall being a blasted, tortured wasteland of famine and despair.
The same concept applies to Scotland. I think an independent Scotland would have a terribly tough time economically in the short term. It couldn't meet the Euro criteria immediately, and I can't see the EU bending its rules again (*cough* Greece). But if that's what people want, there's no reason why it couldn't work in the medium term.
*I'm not being serious here, so pedants avaunt .
A 5% negative move in GDP would result in a 10-15% change in employment because productivity increases over time. You need c. 1.5% annual GDP growth to keep employment stable.
On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.
'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf
This gives total gross Scottish EU annual payments of GBP 1.175-1.355 billion
For the cohesion funds, the EU process is that, in its 7-year budget "More than half of the budget – €182.2 billion – has been set aside for less developed regions, which have a GDP of less than 75 % of the EU-27 average. €35 billion has been allocated to transition regions, which have a GDP of between 75 % and 90 % of
So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,
Works well for the strapline.
Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.
Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.
Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.
Vote Yes in May 2017
I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?
I assumed it was a joke....
Ha Ha Ha , your village is searching for you
Why are you so damned rude?
Every other comment you post is belittling someone or other.
Jog on and get a sense of humour you saddo
Oh, sorry yes, my fault entirely. I hadn't realised I was dealing with such an incredibly wise man. I humbly beg your forgiveness.
You are almost forgiven , at least you have realised the error of your ways.
No, no - my abrogation should observe no bounds. What all your followers (and all those you have insulted in the past) desire is a mere sign, a simple sign as to your magnificent wisdom.
My ways are your ways oh great malcolmg - these are infallible ways for in this you have vouched.
edit - you could also say that you were rather rude, and you apologise
Leaving the EU could be achieved with limited near-term economic consequences. Instead we seem to be going for maximum economic damage.
Which is an act of criminal negligence by the current government, who should have outlined what leave meant and are expected to have plans for all eventualities. How is it we have detailed plans for accidents in nuclear power stations with chances down in the one in tens of millions, but we don't have even the most basic plan for what we do after a leave result in a referendum which forecasts never put below about a 20% likelihood.
Does anyone know the timetable for the Con party sending ballot papers out to its members?
Assuming the MPs voting goes through 3 rounds - ie nobody withdraws - the final MPs ballot will be on Tuesday 12 July.
If the poll in The Sun is remotely accurate Leadsom needs there to be a delay of at least a few weeks whilst campaigning starts, she builds her profile and ideally she would probably also need a big high profile TV debate vs May.
However if ballot papers go out quickly after 12 July she is surely going to have almost no chance at all - as we know that most postal ballots get returned quickly and she just won't have had anything like enough of a chance to make an impression with members, many of whom will barely even know who she is.
Leaving the EU could be achieved with limited near-term economic consequences. Instead we seem to be going for maximum economic damage.
Which is an act of criminal negligence by the current government, who should have outlined what leave meant and are expected to have plans for all eventualities. How is it we have detailed plans for accidents in nuclear power stations with chances down in the one in tens of millions, but we don't have even the most basic plan for what we do after a leave result in a referendum which forecasts never put below about a 20% likelihood.
Yes, but if they'd claimed Leave meant EFTA/EEA, then a huge number of people would have been up in arms about not being offered an option that restricted immigration.
Does anyone know the timetable for the Con party sending ballot papers out to its members?
Assuming the MPs voting goes through 3 rounds - ie nobody withdraws - the final MPs ballot will be on Tuesday 12 July.
If the poll in The Sun is remotely accurate Leadsom needs there to be a delay of at least a few weeks whilst campaigning starts, she builds her profile and ideally she would probably also need a big high profile TV debate vs May.
However if ballot papers go out quickly after 12 July she is surely going to have almost no chance at all - as we know that most postal ballots get returned quickly and she just won't have had anything like enough of a chance to make an impression with members, many of whom will barely even know who she is.
If it this like last time, ballots should be sent out mid/last week of July.
IIRC the MPs stage ended mid October 2005, and I got my ballot papers second week of November
A propos of nothing, when Caspar Weinberger was secretary of defense, he was known as Cap the Knife, after the Macheath character in the Threepenny Opera.
Following his demolition by sharp instrument of Boris Johnson, did anyone in the press dub Michael Gove Mike the Knife?
On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.
'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf
This gives total gross Scottish EU annual payments of GBP 1.175-1.355 billion
For the cohesion funds, the EU process is that, in its 7-year budget "More than half of the budget – €182.2 billion – has been set aside for less developed regions, which have a GDP of less than 75 % of the EU-27 average. €35 billion has been allocated to transition regions, which have a GDP of between 75 % and 90 % of
So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,
Works well for the strapline.
Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.
Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.
Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.
Vote Yes in May 2017
I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?
I assumed it was a joke....
How about a deal with Scotland? Yes you can have a second referendum but to make sure that this is an even playing field free of UK Govt bribes, it will mean an end to the Barnet formula win or lose, yes or no. Thus your scottish voters are no longer bribed to vote to stay in the UK. You can then vote to be independent, get the Euro, slash govt spending to meet EU rules and pay their EU charges. Also lose control of fishing to the EU etc etc... Seems like a good deal to me. A new Pledge.
Ha Ha Ha , your village is searching for you
Malcolmg, I am a supportor of Scottish independence. I want to help you achieve your goal, but you need to give up the teat of the UK support system and getting used to living without us is a key step.
Indigo. Are you still optimistic for the UK's economic prospects in the short, medium and long term? Also what arrangement are you hoping the UK achieve with Europe post Brexit?
Until recently I had great faith in the British people to weather a short term downturn and make the best of the new world, making deals with countries outside the EU for a neutral medium term and improved long term. However given the amount of crying, naysaying and attempts to cling on to nurse I am now not quite so sure, the stiff upper lip and bulldog spirit appear to be long gone.
If I had any confidence that the people would be offered another look at the issue in a decade I could live with the EEA/EFTA approach for now and let people see how they feel about the immigration issue later on. My main concern is that politicians having been given a massive scare are not going to feel inclined to ask the people what they think in future, and so the question is not going to get asked.
I fear there will be increasing civil unrest in the medium term if we stay with Freedom of Movement because frankly politicians are not going to make the changes required to make it work, vis contributory benefits systems, and proper provision on health and schooling. The former because the left and wishywashy Tories will scream blue murder at the merest suggestion, and the later because the British public will never accept the tax rises required to fund it.
Thanks. So have you got BREMORSE?
Nope. I dont think things will have been much better long term staying in. Indeed I always expected that we would have been forced to leave when the eurozone federalizes over the next 5-10 years or so, only then we would have been that much more integrated and so the economic shock would have been comparatively worse.
When it comes to two uncertain future paths I will take the one that gives people flexibility to change in a changing world without having to ask 27 other countries, and where we can kick out people that make stupid decisions. Personally I think losing the malign influence of the ECJ was almost worth it on its own
The long term predictions of woe assume we won't do deals with anyone else which seems highly unlikely given the queue of Commonwealth and other countries already expressing an interest.
Indigo. Are you still optimistic for the UK's economic prospects in the short, medium and long term? Also what arrangement are you hoping the UK achieve with Europe post Brexit?
Until recently I had great faith in the British people to weather a short term downturn and make the best of the new world, making deals with countries outside the EU for a neutral medium term and improved long term. However given the amount of crying, naysaying and attempts to cling on to nurse I am now not quite so sure, the stiff upper lip and bulldog spirit appear to be long gone.
If I had any confidence that the people would be offered another look at the issue in a decade I could live with the EEA/EFTA approach for now and let people see how they feel about the immigration issue later on. My main concern is that politicians having been given a massive scare are not going to feel inclined to ask the people what they think in future, and so the question is not going to get asked.
I fear there will be increasing civil unrest in the medium term if we stay with Freedom of Movement because frankly politicians are not going to make the changes required to make it work, vis contributory benefits systems, and proper provision on health and schooling. The former because the left and wishywashy Tories will scream blue murder at the merest suggestion, and the later because the British public will never accept the tax rises required to fund it.
The thing is, there has been no planning for post a Leave vote by anyone.
There is no consensus about what Leave means.
There was no realisation that a long period of limbo would have economic consequences.
Before the vote, I repeatedly stated that the choice should be between two concrete proposals. I stated that - failing that - there should be a supplementary question on the ballot paper about the UK's future relationship with the EU.
Without this, anyone claiming to know the will of the British people is lying. No-one knows. And the longer we sit there, with future trade relationships unknown the longer businesses will sit on their hands.
Leaving the EU could be achieved with limited near-term economic consequences. Instead we seem to be going for maximum economic damage.
The think that has angered me most about Cameron is that he has genuinely done no contingency planning. It's utterly extraordinary and a complete dereliction of duty.
Leaving the EU could be achieved with limited near-term economic consequences. Instead we seem to be going for maximum economic damage.
Which is an act of criminal negligence by the current government, who should have outlined what leave meant and are expected to have plans for all eventualities. How is it we have detailed plans for accidents in nuclear power stations with chances down in the one in tens of millions, but we don't have even the most basic plan for what we do after a leave result in a referendum which forecasts never put below about a 20% likelihood.
Yes, but if they'd claimed Leave meant EFTA/EEA, then a huge number of people would have been up in arms about not being offered an option that restricted immigration.
Perhaps the government should have thought about that before it offered the referendum
After all they were effectively offering a referendum as a sop to people that were concerned about immigration to stop them running off to UKIP, it would be more than a little dishonest to offer it if they had no intention of offering a solution that did anything about it. Lyin Dave.
Does anyone know the timetable for the Con party sending ballot papers out to its members?
Assuming the MPs voting goes through 3 rounds - ie nobody withdraws - the final MPs ballot will be on Tuesday 12 July.
If the poll in The Sun is remotely accurate Leadsom needs there to be a delay of at least a few weeks whilst campaigning starts, she builds her profile and ideally she would probably also need a big high profile TV debate vs May.
However if ballot papers go out quickly after 12 July she is surely going to have almost no chance at all - as we know that most postal ballots get returned quickly and she just won't have had anything like enough of a chance to make an impression with members, many of whom will barely even know who she is.
If it this like last time, ballots should be sent out mid/last week of July.
IIRC the MPs stage ended mid October 2005, and I got my ballot papers second week of November
Thanks - on that basis I think it looks very difficult for her indeed.
Leaving the EU could be achieved with limited near-term economic consequences. Instead we seem to be going for maximum economic damage.
Which is an act of criminal negligence by the current government, who should have outlined what leave meant and are expected to have plans for all eventualities. How is it we have detailed plans for accidents in nuclear power stations with chances down in the one in tens of millions, but we don't have even the most basic plan for what we do after a leave result in a referendum which forecasts never put below about a 20% likelihood.
Yes, but if they'd claimed Leave meant EFTA/EEA, then a huge number of people would have been up in arms about not being offered an option that restricted immigration.
Leaving the EU could be achieved with limited near-term economic consequences. Instead we seem to be going for maximum economic damage.
Which is an act of criminal negligence by the current government, who should have outlined what leave meant and are expected to have plans for all eventualities. How is it we have detailed plans for accidents in nuclear power stations with chances down in the one in tens of millions, but we don't have even the most basic plan for what we do after a leave result in a referendum which forecasts never put below about a 20% likelihood.
Yes, but if they'd claimed Leave meant EFTA/EEA, then a huge number of people would have been up in arms about not being offered an option that restricted immigration.
I'm writing the next thread, can you confirm that EFTA/EEA means Freedom of Movement?
Until recently I had great faith in the British people to weather a short term downturn and make the best of the new world, making deals with countries outside the EU for a neutral medium term and improved long term. However given the amount of crying, naysaying and attempts to cling on to nurse I am now not quite so sure, the stiff upper lip and bulldog spirit appear to be long gone.
If I had any confidence that the people would be offered another look at the issue in a decade I could live with the EEA/EFTA approach for now and let people see how they feel about the immigration issue later on. My main concern is that politicians having been given a massive scare are not going to feel inclined to ask the people what they think in future, and so the question is not going to get asked.
I fear there will be increasing civil unrest in the medium term if we stay with Freedom of Movement because frankly politicians are not going to make the changes required to make it work, vis contributory benefits systems, and proper provision on health and schooling. The former because the left and wishywashy Tories will scream blue murder at the merest suggestion, and the later because the British public will never accept the tax rises required to fund it.
The thing is, there has been no planning for post a Leave vote by anyone.
There is no consensus about what Leave means.
There was no realisation that a long period of limbo would have economic consequences.
Before the vote, I repeatedly stated that the choice should be between two concrete proposals. I stated that - failing that - there should be a supplementary question on the ballot paper about the UK's future relationship with the EU.
Without this, anyone claiming to know the will of the British people is lying. No-one knows. And the longer we sit there, with future trade relationships unknown the longer businesses will sit on their hands.
Leaving the EU could be achieved with limited near-term economic consequences. Instead we seem to be going for maximum economic damage.
The think that has angered me most about Cameron is that he has genuinely done no contingency planning. It's utterly extraordinary and a complete dereliction of duty.
He was campaigning for, and obviously expected to win, the status quo. No contingency planning needed. He knew that if he lost he was gone, so what would be the point of putting any planning in place which could be ignored by his successor?
He knew no more than anyone does now about what sort of UK we will see post brexit, so therefor couldn't really plan for the unknown.
Leaving the EU could be achieved with limited near-term economic consequences. Instead we seem to be going for maximum economic damage.
Which is an act of criminal negligence by the current government, who should have outlined what leave meant and are expected to have plans for all eventualities. How is it we have detailed plans for accidents in nuclear power stations with chances down in the one in tens of millions, but we don't have even the most basic plan for what we do after a leave result in a referendum which forecasts never put below about a 20% likelihood.
Yes, but if they'd claimed Leave meant EFTA/EEA, then a huge number of people would have been up in arms about not being offered an option that restricted immigration.
I'm writing the next thread, can you confirm that EFTA/EEA means Freedom of Movement?
For complete freedom of movement, one requires a laxative
Does anyone know the timetable for the Con party sending ballot papers out to its members?
Assuming the MPs voting goes through 3 rounds - ie nobody withdraws - the final MPs ballot will be on Tuesday 12 July.
If the poll in The Sun is remotely accurate Leadsom needs there to be a delay of at least a few weeks whilst campaigning starts, she builds her profile and ideally she would probably also need a big high profile TV debate vs May.
However if ballot papers go out quickly after 12 July she is surely going to have almost no chance at all - as we know that most postal ballots get returned quickly and she just won't have had anything like enough of a chance to make an impression with members, many of whom will barely even know who she is.
If it this like last time, ballots should be sent out mid/last week of July.
IIRC the MPs stage ended mid October 2005, and I got my ballot papers second week of November
Thanks - on that basis I think it looks very difficult for her indeed.
Just found this, the schedule for the 2005 contest.
20th of October - Final ballot of MPs
3rd November - Question Time featuring David Cameron and David Davis
4th November - Ballot papers sent out to party members
On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.
'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf
So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,
Works well for the strapline.
Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.
Vote Yes in May 2017
I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?
I assumed it was a joke....
Ha Ha Ha , your village is searching for you
Jog on and get a sense of humour you saddo
Oh, sorry yes, my fault entirely. I hadn't realised I was dealing with such an incredibly wise man. I humbly beg your forgiveness.
You are almost forgiven , at least you have realised the error of your ways.
No, no - my abrogation should observe no bounds. What all your followers (and all those you have insulted in the past) desire is a mere sign, a simple sign as to your magnificent wisdom.
My ways are your ways oh great malcolmg - these are infallible ways for in this you have vouched.
edit - you could also say that you were rather rude, and you apologise
Omnium , your first one was correct , your edit not so much but given you may not be au fait with my ways , I apologise unreservedly if you were upset by my sense of humour. I will however be unlikely to change in the future, you may well be on receiving end of Turnip of the Day Awards at some point.., then you will know you have made it
On an independent Scotland's gross contributions to the EU, here is what I have dug up.
'Experimental' GNI figures for 2010 indicate a Scottish GNI in the range of GBP120 billion (no North Sea gas and oil) to just under GBP 140 billion (geographic share of oil and gas income, prior to crash in oil prices). That gives a range of GNI contributions of GBP 840-1080 million. Figures from the Scottish National Accounts Project at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00438352.pdf
This gives total gross Scottish EU annual payments of GBP 1.175-1.355 billion
For the cohesion funds, the EU process is that, in its 7-year budget "More than half of the budget – €182.2 billion – has been set aside for less developed regions, which have a GDP of less than 75 % of the EU-27 average. €35 billion has been allocated to transition regions, which have a GDP of between 75 % and 90 % of
So we're talking about a net contribution óf £10m a week,
Works well for the strapline.
Being in the UK costs Scotland £200m a week.
Being in the EU will cost Scotland £10m a week.
Let's use the difference to fund our NHS.
Vote Yes in May 2017
I thought Scotland was a net beneficiary thanks to Barnet?
I assumed it was a joke....
How about a deal with Scotland? Yes you can have a second referendum but to make sure that this is an even playing field free of UK Govt bribes, it will mean an end to the Barnet formula win or lose, yes or no. Thus your scottish voters are no longer bribed to vote to stay in the UK. You can then vote to be independent, get the Euro, slash govt spending to meet EU rules and pay their EU charges. Also lose control of fishing to the EU etc etc... Seems like a good deal to me. A new Pledge.
Ha Ha Ha , your village is searching for you
Malcolmg, I am a supportor of Scottish independence. I want to help you achieve your goal, but you need to give up the teat of the UK support system and getting used to living without us is a key step.
TC , I was just jesting , I know you are a supporter, given I have been here before. I dearly wish that the day comes when they are forced to stand on their own two feet, there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth for sure , given it will not be a simple task. It is time though.
He was campaigning for, and obviously expected to win, the status quo. No contingency planning needed. He knew that if he lost he was gone, so what would be the point of putting any planning in place which could be ignored by his successor?
He knew no more than anyone does now about what sort of UK we will see post brexit, so therefor couldn't really plan for the unknown.
We expect nuclear power stations not to blow up, we still make plans just incase they do, and its a whole lot less likely to happen. If he didn't know what was going to happen in the event of a leave vote perhaps he should have told the people.
This is conspicuously a con trick. He knew the only viable options post Leave would be EEA/EFTA type solutions. He also knew that he couldn't tell the people that because there would be hell to pay since it had been offered as a sop to keep his right wing from decamping to UKIP. So he didn't tell people what Leave meant, and hence couldnt plan for it. He was dishonest and came a cropper, and now the country is playing for his dishonesty.
Does anyone know the timetable for the Con party sending ballot papers out to its members?
Assuming the MPs voting goes through 3 rounds - ie nobody withdraws - the final MPs ballot will be on Tuesday 12 July.
If the poll in The Sun is remotely accurate Leadsom needs there to be a delay of at least a few weeks whilst campaigning starts, she builds her profile and ideally she would probably also need a big high profile TV debate vs May.
However if ballot papers go out quickly after 12 July she is surely going to have almost no chance at all - as we know that most postal ballots get returned quickly and she just won't have had anything like enough of a chance to make an impression with members, many of whom will barely even know who she is.
If it this like last time, ballots should be sent out mid/last week of July.
IIRC the MPs stage ended mid October 2005, and I got my ballot papers second week of November
Thanks - on that basis I think it looks very difficult for her indeed.
Just found this, the schedule for the 2005 contest.
20th of October - Final ballot of MPs
3rd November - Question Time featuring David Cameron and David Davis
4th November - Ballot papers sent out to party members
I defy anyone to be able to really split out the economics in the UK, so much of our cash disappears into unknown buckets and is spent on Westminster follies who would know what the reality is. For sure if all the UK vanity projects were dumped we would be seriously better off than we are now deficit or not.
I doubt you will even read it, but go ahead and have a try at opening your mind for once. In one paragraph you make at least three wild claims with no actual basis to try and muddy the waters, after several hours of strawmanning people about "talking Scotland dooooooon!". If you are the typical SNP voter it explains much.
Europe seems to be in perpetual economic limbo with the woes of the Eurozone. They have a £100bn surplus at stake in their dealings with the UK. The German car industry is playing with over 20% of it's exports.
Comments
We don't have Sky and won't have Sky.
I havew found with cricket that there are some internet channels that you can watch if things get exciting, albeit with some degredation.
You only need to watch the start and then watch the highlights later - unless you want a nap in which case try watching the cars go round the circuit time after time in the same order.
Was Blair a minister of any kind before he became PM? I think not.
So Leadsom would be the least experienced since Blair.
Labour source on Len McCluskey's continued support for Jeremy Corbyn: "He's scared of his even-harder-left officials."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Blair
It's a bit unfair comparing people who served in a party in government, against those whose party was out of government!
Edit: You've just made me defend Blair. Damn you!
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/austria-post-race-analysis-2016.html
NP (or others) - what does 'solidarity' mean?
It has meant 'unthinking' in the past. Does it now?
Which is why the BBC want to move towards a general taxation model. And why, if it applies to the BBC alone, it should be resisted.
I had a middle eastern friend who came to this country. After going to university and working here for 15 years he then went to work in the middle east but made sure he was not resident in any country.
The last I heard from him he wondered if I would like to go 50/50 to buy a 250 room hotel in this country. Way out of my league. Shows the disadvantage of being resident somewhere and subject to tax.
Not my idea of fun.
The major impact of a common system for taxpayer identification is that it makes it hard to avoid taxes by allowing governments to require citizens to list all their tax codes by country.
Indeed, I would bet that the US will come on side with this pretty quick. It's a great way of forcing people to disclose.
There anti Corbyn bias is clear for all to see.
I'll buy box sets if I'm absolutely positive I'll enjoy a series, or increasingly, the HD streaming version on Amazon.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f6cda050-20bb-11e5-aa5a-398b2169cf79.html
In addition, David Cameron had only been a Spad.
So the whole 'Leadsom inexperienced' line is total tits.
Allegedly:
Rosberg given a ten second penalty for causing an accident, and 2 penalty points for finishing the race with an unsafe car.
It doesn't change the result as he was over 10 seconds in front of Ricciardo
No official source yet.
Every other comment you post is belittling someone or other.
Can't see the point myself...
https://next.ft.com/content/404487c0-411e-11e6-9b66-0712b3873ae1
Having made that decision, we can't now just turn on the Scots and tell them that they're committing economic suicide - that's just rerunning the old too puir, too wee, too daft crap that people have peddled for years.
Scotland should have a second Sindy referendum. I do think it would be wise to wait until we understand the UK's exit strategy. If it's going to be pure WTO, for example, I'd expect the Nationalists to win handily.
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/
I doubt you will even read it, but go ahead and have a try at opening your mind for once.
In one paragraph you make at least three wild claims with no actual basis to try and muddy the waters, after several hours of strawmanning people about "talking Scotland dooooooon!".
If you are the typical SNP voter it explains much.
My overall sense of the majority of Leavers on here: affluent, well educated sovereignistas who, while wishing to abandon the European political project, understand it's going to take time to disentangle ourselves and would rather not hurt the economy any more than necessary while doing so.
True, they will have one definitely. But the SNP case on finances is awful, vague and downright mendacious......and at the same time as they criticise Boris et al.
If you don't agree then STFU.
Still, better than momentum activists position as described in the papers "tell me X or I will come around and kick your head in"
You got the party you always wanted Palmer, enjoy it.
The rest of us despair of the loons running the asylum
PS very interesting to see Corbyn's reaction to the events at the Anti Semitism report - I am sure that yet again Mr Palmer managed to miss it.
If I had any confidence that the people would be offered another look at the issue in a decade I could live with the EEA/EFTA approach for now and let people see how they feel about the immigration issue later on. My main concern is that politicians having been given a massive scare are not going to feel inclined to ask the people what they think in future, and so the question is not going to get asked.
I fear there will be increasing civil unrest in the medium term if we stay with Freedom of Movement because frankly politicians are not going to make the changes required to make it work, vis contributory benefits systems, and proper provision on health and schooling. The former because the left and wishywashy Tories will scream blue murder at the merest suggestion, and the later because the British public will never accept the tax rises required to fund it.
Walked the dog yesterday past the house I rented a while back, big place and not cheap.
Sold within a week of being on market.
I also see Merkel wants to act sensibly post brexit in a reasonable fashion and Junker in firing line.
Scott P might need new instructions from HQ.
However, if you imagine a 25% absolute decline* (in constant currency), that would put the UK back to 1999, which I don't recall being a blasted, tortured wasteland of famine and despair.
The same concept applies to Scotland. I think an independent Scotland would have a terribly tough time economically in the short term. It couldn't meet the Euro criteria immediately, and I can't see the EU bending its rules again (*cough* Greece). But if that's what people want, there's no reason why it couldn't work in the medium term.
*I'm not being serious here, so pedants avaunt
Thanks for the piece.
https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/749658380231331840
When it comes to two uncertain future paths I will take the one that gives people flexibility to change in a changing world without having to ask 27 other countries, and where we can kick out people that make stupid decisions. Personally I think losing the malign influence of the ECJ was almost worth it on its own
The long term predictions of woe assume we won't do deals with anyone else which seems highly unlikely given the queue of Commonwealth and other countries already expressing an interest.
There is no consensus about what Leave means.
There was no realisation that a long period of limbo would have economic consequences.
Before the vote, I repeatedly stated that the choice should be between two concrete proposals. I stated that - failing that - there should be a supplementary question on the ballot paper about the UK's future relationship with the EU.
Without this, anyone claiming to know the will of the British people is lying. No-one knows. And the longer we sit there, with future trade relationships unknown the longer businesses will sit on their hands.
Leaving the EU could be achieved with limited near-term economic consequences. Instead we seem to be going for maximum economic damage.
On Scotland I want it independent , making their own decisions and it may or may not be better off but at least it will be making its own decisions rather than being forced to follow what ever Westminster wants, which for better or worse is not what Scotland wants nowadays. I doubt we will starve.
My ways are your ways oh great malcolmg - these are infallible ways for in this you have vouched.
edit - you could also say that you were rather rude, and you apologise
Assuming the MPs voting goes through 3 rounds - ie nobody withdraws - the final MPs ballot will be on Tuesday 12 July.
If the poll in The Sun is remotely accurate Leadsom needs there to be a delay of at least a few weeks whilst campaigning starts, she builds her profile and ideally she would probably also need a big high profile TV debate vs May.
However if ballot papers go out quickly after 12 July she is surely going to have almost no chance at all - as we know that most postal ballots get returned quickly and she just won't have had anything like enough of a chance to make an impression with members, many of whom will barely even know who she is.
IIRC the MPs stage ended mid October 2005, and I got my ballot papers second week of November
Following his demolition by sharp instrument of Boris Johnson, did anyone in the press dub Michael Gove Mike the Knife?
After all they were effectively offering a referendum as a sop to people that were concerned about immigration to stop them running off to UKIP, it would be more than a little dishonest to offer it if they had no intention of offering a solution that did anything about it. Lyin Dave.
He knew no more than anyone does now about what sort of UK we will see post brexit, so therefor couldn't really plan for the unknown.
Its win an election versus win the party's direction.
Looks like they'll choose the party above power.
20th of October - Final ballot of MPs
3rd November - Question Time featuring David Cameron and David Davis
4th November - Ballot papers sent out to party members
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/conleader05.htm
I will however be unlikely to change in the future, you may well be on receiving end of Turnip of the Day Awards at some point.., then you will know you have made it
http://www.dw.com/en/opinion-will-european-union-wake-up-after-brexit-vote/a-19375366
This is conspicuously a con trick. He knew the only viable options post Leave would be EEA/EFTA type solutions. He also knew that he couldn't tell the people that because there would be hell to pay since it had been offered as a sop to keep his right wing from decamping to UKIP. So he didn't tell people what Leave meant, and hence couldnt plan for it. He was dishonest and came a cropper, and now the country is playing for his dishonesty.
The question is - can she get the BBC to do the same this time?
Additional problem for her is we are moving in to the summer when not only Parliament stops but also all the TV political programmes stop.
Also don't think the BBC did a QT Special for the Labour leadership vote last year.
Thats why he never once analyses spending.