These figures show how being part of the UK protects living standards in Scotland.
Scotland weathered a dramatic slump in oil revenues last year because we are part of a United Kingdom that has at its heart a system for pooling and sharing resources across the country as a whole.
It is important that continues and the financial deal between the UK and Scottish governments, struck last year as part of the transfer of new tax and welfare powers to Holyrood, means real security for Scotland.
The fact public spending was £1,200 per head higher in Scotland than the UK as a whole also demonstrates that the United Kingdom, not the European Union, is the vital union for Scotland’s prosperity.
David Jack Net fiscal deficit in Scotland now stands at nearly £15bn or 9.5% of GDP, more than twice that for UK as a whole https://t.co/4iH9p1P0y2
Mark-Zemanick: Also a small reminder that the White Paper estimated oil revenues at £6.8-£7.9bn. #GERS has them at £60m. Out by more than 99%.
Not too bad
Not only that but they said that those were pessimistic UK government figures, and that $110 was a floor and that they would likely be much higher. They could barely have been more wrong.
An independent Scotland is a country much like Iran or Russia, a fall in oil prices trashes the economy and finances.
These figures show how being part of the UK protects living standards in Scotland.
Scotland weathered a dramatic slump in oil revenues last year because we are part of a United Kingdom that has at its heart a system for pooling and sharing resources across the country as a whole.
It is important that continues and the financial deal between the UK and Scottish governments, struck last year as part of the transfer of new tax and welfare powers to Holyrood, means real security for Scotland.
The fact public spending was £1,200 per head higher in Scotland than the UK as a whole also demonstrates that the United Kingdom, not the European Union, is the vital union for Scotland’s prosperity.
David Jack Net fiscal deficit in Scotland now stands at nearly £15bn or 9.5% of GDP, more than twice that for UK as a whole https://t.co/4iH9p1P0y2
Mark-Zemanick: Also a small reminder that the White Paper estimated oil revenues at £6.8-£7.9bn. #GERS has them at £60m. Out by more than 99%.
Not too bad
Not only that but they said that those were pessimistic UK government figures, and that $110 was a floor and that they would likely be much higher. They could barely have been more wrong.
So how much did we bribe the Saudis to flood the market?
You could keep a good proportion of the passengers- the more lucrative longer distance ones - by running leeds to carlisle trains via Giggleswick if you closed it.
You would keep a good proportion of the through passengers on one of the North-West's most popular tourist lines if you sent them via Giggleswick?
Well, it's a point of view...
I reckon a quarter of the leeds - carlisle pax. However that probably amounts to well over a third of the farebox revenue.
So from a business / profit point of view if the freight goes then close it.
The political point of view is though a little different....so I doubt it would happen outside a 1930s type severe economic situation.
David Jack Net fiscal deficit in Scotland now stands at nearly £15bn or 9.5% of GDP, more than twice that for UK as a whole https://t.co/4iH9p1P0y2
Mark-Zemanick: Also a small reminder that the White Paper estimated oil revenues at £6.8-£7.9bn. #GERS has them at £60m. Out by more than 99%.
Not too bad
Not only that but they said that those were pessimistic UK government figures, and that $110 was a floor and that they would likely be much higher. They could barely have been more wrong.
So how much did we bribe the Saudis to flood the market?
The real problem for Scotland is many other sources being developed for a host of reasons, the North Sea fields winding down, and a gradual move to renewables. Scotland (in or out) needs a massive restructuring of the economy.
Don't you think that recent Russian posturing, and Trump's wavering on the Baltics also play a role?
If you were sitting in Berlin or Riga, and you were looking at a more aggressive Russia and a more isolationist USA, what other options do you think are on the table?
If I were in Berlin or Riga I'd begin paying my way within NATO so that if the US does temporarily withdraw or suspend its membership then it wouldn't be too much of an issue. I certainly wouldn't be looking to hand over military policy to Brussels on the basis of making budget cuts and cost savings. That's really what this boils down to, the European nations want to be protected and they want someone else (US, UK, France) to pay the bills. I don't see how an EU army would help with security, if anything it will make it tougher since unanimity would surely be required to commit forces to any conflict. What is in the interests of, say, Poland may not be in the interests of Portugal. At least in NATO there are collective action clauses and the ability to act unilaterally. An EU army would be a bureaucratic nightmare.
The Baltics all do pay their 2% don't they?
I think your instinctive Euroscepticism (which I broadly applaud) means you tend to miss the limited strategic options of some countries. Simply put, the US is less likely to protect Europe than they used to. We're lucky; we're on the far Western edge of the continent. Others are not so fortunate.
Only Poland and more recently Estonia meet the 2% minimum spend criterion. The rest are between 1-1.5%.
Surely an intergovernmental approach would be better than centralising it to the EU where defence and military objectives are fairly non-aligned. A new Eastern defence pact which invites the 10 Eastern European nations, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, France and the UK makes much more sense than an EU army controlled from Brussels with the likes of Portugal, Italy, Spain and Greece having any kind if say on the defence posture wrt to Russia. That's assuming the US withdraws from the protection of Europe, which I don't think is on the cards, even if Trump manages to win I don't think Congress would ever allow the US to withdraw from NATO.
David Jack Net fiscal deficit in Scotland now stands at nearly £15bn or 9.5% of GDP, more than twice that for UK as a whole https://t.co/4iH9p1P0y2
Mark-Zemanick: Also a small reminder that the White Paper estimated oil revenues at £6.8-£7.9bn. #GERS has them at £60m. Out by more than 99%.
Not too bad
Not only that but they said that those were pessimistic UK government figures, and that $110 was a floor and that they would likely be much higher. They could barely have been more wrong.
So how much did we bribe the Saudis to flood the market?
The real problem for Scotland is many other sources being developed for a host of reasons, the North Sea fields winding down, and a gradual move to renewables. Scotland (in or out) needs a massive restructuring of the economy.
Don't worry. Malc has assured me the next boom will be in the turnip market.
These figures show how being part of the UK protects living standards in Scotland.
Scotland weathered a dramatic slump in oil revenues last year because we are part of a United Kingdom that has at its heart a system for pooling and sharing resources across the country as a whole.
It is important that continues and the financial deal between the UK and Scottish governments, struck last year as part of the transfer of new tax and welfare powers to Holyrood, means real security for Scotland.
The fact public spending was £1,200 per head higher in Scotland than the UK as a whole also demonstrates that the United Kingdom, not the European Union, is the vital union for Scotland’s prosperity.
Or in other words Scotland is a parasite that we are better without.
Who is 'we' in this scenario? The UK is not better off without Scotland even if it is costing more per head, because the UK would be diminished in so many ways without it. It is to be hoped none of the constituent parts will be a drain on any of the others in an ideal world, until then that's the price of Union I guess.
These figures show how being part of the UK protects living standards in Scotland.
Scotland weathered a dramatic slump in oil revenues last year because we are part of a United Kingdom that has at its heart a system for pooling and sharing resources across the country as a whole.
It is important that continues and the financial deal between the UK and Scottish governments, struck last year as part of the transfer of new tax and welfare powers to Holyrood, means real security for Scotland.
The fact public spending was £1,200 per head higher in Scotland than the UK as a whole also demonstrates that the United Kingdom, not the European Union, is the vital union for Scotland’s prosperity.
Or in other words Scotland is a parasite that we are better without.
Im happy to trade of the extra cash for the strategic and security benefits of controlling the whole island - so long as we dont let them take the p***
The divisions will play out in the Party before then, while negotiations are underway. But as the negotiations will happen after Art 50 is triggered, the only options would be to agree to it or to leave in chaos, so no matter what the recriminations about the specific deal, virtually everyone will sign up to it because there won't be a realistic alternative. If there is real opposition to any specific measure, that'll have already made itself felt by that point.
But the party and - I suspect - Conservative voters in the country are largely content with Leave in principle now. Most voted that way anyway and a lot of Leavers, like me, recognise that it was the will of the public and that that should be respected. The rest follows fairly naturally. We can't be part of the Single Market or customs union because that'd mean having to be remain in effect within the EU structures. The question is about the terms of access to the Market - but that's something that countries all across the world negotiate on and the UK can come to its own arrangement.
There will be pressure from some for a Hard Brexit. it might even make sense. Much depends on Juncker, Merkel, Hollande and their potential successors. Fact is that if freedom of movement genuinely is a non-negotiable for the EU, then a Hard Exit it will have to be. That kind of thinking would kill the EU because it's so far removed from what the voting publics want. However, when the tough talking begins, I don't think it will be a non-negotiable; we'll just need a quid pro quo in return.
I'm getting increasingly concerned that the establishment is regrouping and will prevent us from ever invoking A50 and leaving.
"The Game" is clearly to get Owen Who to replace Corbyn, then do everything they can to hold up and delay A50 through the Commons and Lords, presumably followed by Labour winning in 2020 on a REMAIN platform - Thus the referendum never happened and we stay (but look absurd to the rest of the world)
The divisions will play out in the Party before then, while negotiations are underway. But as the negotiations will happen after Art 50 is triggered, the only options would be to agree to it or to leave in chaos, so no matter what the recriminations about the specific deal, virtually everyone will sign up to it because there won't be a realistic alternative. If there is real opposition to any specific measure, that'll have already made itself felt by that point.
But the party and - I suspect - Conservative voters in the country are largely content with Leave in principle now. Most voted that way anyway and a lot of Leavers, like me, recognise that it was the will of the public and that that should be respected. The rest follows fairly naturally. We can't be part of the Single Market or customs union because that'd mean having to be remain in effect within the EU structures. The question is about the terms of access to the Market - but that's something that countries all across the world negotiate on and the UK can come to its own arrangement.
There will be pressure from some for a Hard Brexit. it might even make sense. Much depends on Juncker, Merkel, Hollande and their potential successors. Fact is that if freedom of movement genuinely is a non-negotiable for the EU, then a Hard Exit it will have to be. That kind of thinking would kill the EU because it's so far removed from what the voting publics want. However, when the tough talking begins, I don't think it will be a non-negotiable; we'll just need a quid pro quo in return.
I'm getting increasingly concerned that the establishment is regrouping and will prevent us from ever invoking A50 and leaving.
"The Game" is clearly to get Owen Who to replace Corbyn, then do everything they can to hold up and delay A50 through the Commons and Lords, presumably followed by Labour winning in 2020 on a REMAIN platform - Thus the referendum never happened and we stay (but look absurd to the rest of the world)
David Jack Net fiscal deficit in Scotland now stands at nearly £15bn or 9.5% of GDP, more than twice that for UK as a whole https://t.co/4iH9p1P0y2
Mark-Zemanick: Also a small reminder that the White Paper estimated oil revenues at £6.8-£7.9bn. #GERS has them at £60m. Out by more than 99%.
Not too bad
Not only that but they said that those were pessimistic UK government figures, and that $110 was a floor and that they would likely be much higher. They could barely have been more wrong.
So how much did we bribe the Saudis to flood the market?
What about onshore oil?
Huge Grangemouth plant - INEOS willing to develop onshore fracking in the central belt.....but they've moved their fracking operation to England:
These figures show how being part of the UK protects living standards in Scotland.
Scotland weathered a dramatic slump in oil revenues last year because we are part of a United Kingdom that has at its heart a system for pooling and sharing resources across the country as a whole.
It is important that continues and the financial deal between the UK and Scottish governments, struck last year as part of the transfer of new tax and welfare powers to Holyrood, means real security for Scotland.
The fact public spending was £1,200 per head higher in Scotland than the UK as a whole also demonstrates that the United Kingdom, not the European Union, is the vital union for Scotland’s prosperity.
Or in other words Scotland is a parasite that we are better without.
Im happy to trade of the extra cash for the strategic and security benefits of controlling the whole island - so long as we dont let them take the p***
But that's the point; government is too weak-willed to not let them take the piss, just as it was with the EU. It is not a price worth paying.
These figures show how being part of the UK protects living standards in Scotland.
Scotland weathered a dramatic slump in oil revenues last year because we are part of a United Kingdom that has at its heart a system for pooling and sharing resources across the country as a whole.
It is important that continues and the financial deal between the UK and Scottish governments, struck last year as part of the transfer of new tax and welfare powers to Holyrood, means real security for Scotland.
The fact public spending was £1,200 per head higher in Scotland than the UK as a whole also demonstrates that the United Kingdom, not the European Union, is the vital union for Scotland’s prosperity.
Or in other words Scotland is a parasite that we are better without.
Who is 'we' in this scenario? The UK is not better off without Scotland even if it is costing more per head, because the UK would be diminished in so many ways without it.
These figures show how being part of the UK protects living standards in Scotland.
Scotland weathered a dramatic slump in oil revenues last year because we are part of a United Kingdom that has at its heart a system for pooling and sharing resources across the country as a whole.
It is important that continues and the financial deal between the UK and Scottish governments, struck last year as part of the transfer of new tax and welfare powers to Holyrood, means real security for Scotland.
The fact public spending was £1,200 per head higher in Scotland than the UK as a whole also demonstrates that the United Kingdom, not the European Union, is the vital union for Scotland’s prosperity.
Or in other words Scotland is a parasite that we are better without.
Im happy to trade of the extra cash for the strategic and security benefits of controlling the whole island - so long as we dont let them take the p***
But that's the point; government is too weak-willed to not let them take the piss, just as it was with the EU. It is not a price worth paying.
I think Paul is saying it's worth it for a safe and secure society.... and who can argue with that
I'm getting increasingly concerned that the establishment is regrouping and will prevent us from ever invoking A50 and leaving.
"The Game" is clearly to get Owen Who to replace Corbyn, then do everything they can to hold up and delay A50 through the Commons and Lords, presumably followed by Labour winning in 2020 on a REMAIN platform - Thus the referendum never happened and we stay (but look absurd to the rest of the world)
I'm not sure they'd even do the second part. The path of least resistance is to intend to leave, but for it to eternally need more discussion, like Lords Reform which has been in progress for basically 100 years. The longer you don't do something, they easier it is to carry on not doing it.
The divisions will play out in the Party before then, while negotiations are underway. But as the negotiations will happen after Art 50 is triggered, the only options would be to agree to it or to leave in chaos, so no matter what the recriminations about the specific deal, virtually everyone will sign up to it because there won't be a realistic alternative. If there is real opposition to any specific measure, that'll have already made itself felt by that point.
But the party and - I suspect - Conservative voters in the country are largely content with Leave in principle now. Most voted that way anyway and a lot of Leavers, like me, recognise that it was the will of the public and that that should be respected. The rest follows fairly naturally. We can't be part of the Single Market or customs union because that'd mean having to be remain in effect within the EU structures. The question is about the terms of access to the Market - but that's something that countries all across the world negotiate on and the UK can come to its own arrangement.
There will be pressure from some for a Hard Brexit. it might even make sense. Much depends on Juncker, Merkel, Hollande and their potential successors. Fact is that if freedom of movement genuinely is a non-negotiable for the EU, then a Hard Exit it will have to be. That kind of thinking would kill the EU because it's so far removed from what the voting publics want. However, when the tough talking begins, I don't think it will be a non-negotiable; we'll just need a quid pro quo in return.
I'm getting increasingly concerned that the establishment is regrouping and will prevent us from ever invoking A50 and leaving.
"The Game" is clearly to get Owen Who to replace Corbyn, then do everything they can to hold up and delay A50 through the Commons and Lords, presumably followed by Labour winning in 2020 on a REMAIN platform - Thus the referendum never happened and we stay (but look absurd to the rest of the world)
These are worrying times for Brexiteers, IMO.
After the Referendum result, the EU wants shot of us. If the Establishment is sensible, they will realise this. If they are trying to cling on to membership, then UKIP will massively benefit.
I'm getting increasingly concerned that the establishment is regrouping and will prevent us from ever invoking A50 and leaving.
"The Game" is clearly to get Owen Who to replace Corbyn, then do everything they can to hold up and delay A50 through the Commons and Lords, presumably followed by Labour winning in 2020 on a REMAIN platform - Thus the referendum never happened and we stay (but look absurd to the rest of the world)
I'm not sure they'd even do the second part. The path of least resistance is to intend to leave, but for it to eternally need more discussion, like Lords Reform which has been in progress for basically 100 years. The longer you don't do something, they easier it is to carry on not doing it.
Trouble is that no one voted for Lords reform, unlike leaving the EU.
These figures show how being part of the UK protects living standards in Scotland.
Scotland weathered a dramatic slump in oil revenues last year because we are part of a United Kingdom that has at its heart a system for pooling and sharing resources across the country as a whole.
It is important that continues and the financial deal between the UK and Scottish governments, struck last year as part of the transfer of new tax and welfare powers to Holyrood, means real security for Scotland.
The fact public spending was £1,200 per head higher in Scotland than the UK as a whole also demonstrates that the United Kingdom, not the European Union, is the vital union for Scotland’s prosperity.
Or in other words Scotland is a parasite that we are better without.
Who is 'we' in this scenario? The UK is not better off without Scotland even if it is costing more per head, because the UK would be diminished in so many ways without it.
I'm getting increasingly concerned that the establishment is regrouping and will prevent us from ever invoking A50 and leaving.
"The Game" is clearly to get Owen Who to replace Corbyn, then do everything they can to hold up and delay A50 through the Commons and Lords, presumably followed by Labour winning in 2020 on a REMAIN platform - Thus the referendum never happened and we stay (but look absurd to the rest of the world)
I'm not sure they'd even do the second part. The path of least resistance is to intend to leave, but for it to eternally need more discussion, like Lords Reform which has been in progress for basically 100 years. The longer you don't do something, they easier it is to carry on not doing it.
Trouble is that no one voted for Lords reform, unlike leaving the EU.
They voted for leaving the EU, they didn't vote on *when*.
I'm getting increasingly concerned that the establishment is regrouping and will prevent us from ever invoking A50 and leaving.
"The Game" is clearly to get Owen Who to replace Corbyn, then do everything they can to hold up and delay A50 through the Commons and Lords, presumably followed by Labour winning in 2020 on a REMAIN platform - Thus the referendum never happened and we stay (but look absurd to the rest of the world)
I'm not sure they'd even do the second part. The path of least resistance is to intend to leave, but for it to eternally need more discussion, like Lords Reform which has been in progress for basically 100 years. The longer you don't do something, they easier it is to carry on not doing it.
Trouble is that no one voted for Lords reform, unlike leaving the EU.
They voted for leaving the EU, they didn't vote on *when*.
Yes, but no one voted on Lords reform, so the public haven't even expressed an intent on that issue. Much easier to ignore.
The divisions will play out in the Party before then, while negotiations are underway. But as the negotiations will happen after Art 50 is triggered, the only options would be to agree to it or to leave in chaos, so no matter what the recriminations about the specific deal, virtually everyone will sign up to it because there won't be a realistic alternative. If there is real opposition to any specific measure, that'll have already made itself felt by that point.
But the party and - I suspect - Conservative voters in the country are largely content with Leave in principle now. Most voted that way anyway and a lot of Leavers, like me, recognise that it was the will of the public and that that should be respected. The rest follows fairly naturally. We can't be part of the Single Market or customs union because that'd mean having to be remain in effect within the EU structures. The question is about the terms of access to the Market - but that's something that countries all across the world negotiate on and the UK can come to its own arrangement.
There will be pressure from some for a Hard Brexit. it might even make sense. Much depends on Juncker, Merkel, Hollande and their potential successors. Fact is that if freedom of movement genuinely is a non-negotiable for the EU, then a Hard Exit it will have to be. That kind of thinking would kill the EU because it's so far removed from what the voting publics want. However, when the tough talking begins, I don't think it will be a non-negotiable; we'll just need a quid pro quo in return.
I'm getting increasingly concerned that the establishment is regrouping and will prevent us from ever invoking A50 and leaving.
"The Game" is clearly to get Owen Who to replace Corbyn, then do everything they can to hold up and delay A50 through the Commons and Lords, presumably followed by Labour winning in 2020 on a REMAIN platform - Thus the referendum never happened and we stay (but look absurd to the rest of the world)
These are worrying times for Brexiteers, IMO.
Don't panic. Brexit will happen. It won't be the softest and it is unclear if it will be the hardest, but May would be politically destroyed if she tried to prevent it, Smith can talk a good game but Labour dare not too much given how many of their own voters backed it. It will happen.
That said, as absurd as it would look, and as unlikely as it is to happen as no way we will not have triggered article 50 by the next election, if someone did win on a Remain platform in a GE, that is technically a democratic outcome too.
Ian Patterson #traingate continues . Claims now that he wanted to sit with his wife. No pictures so far have showed her though
What is he doing? This is making it worse. He's admitting there were spare seats, and now the media are digging into another potentially dodgy part of his story.
Sky just spent about 5-10 minutes on the murdered tourist's Facebook comments and what her school said, then a few minutes saying we don't know the motives, but that a few people have focused on the Allahu Akbar phrase.
The media = Prince George The public = Blackadder
"Why on Earth would an anarchist want to kill you?" "I think it may have been you he was gunning for, sir." "Oh, hogwash! What makes you say that?" "My suspicion was first aroused by the use of the words 'death to the stupid prince'."
I'm getting increasingly concerned that the establishment is regrouping and will prevent us from ever invoking A50 and leaving.
"The Game" is clearly to get Owen Who to replace Corbyn, then do everything they can to hold up and delay A50 through the Commons and Lords, presumably followed by Labour winning in 2020 on a REMAIN platform - Thus the referendum never happened and we stay (but look absurd to the rest of the world)
I'm not sure they'd even do the second part. The path of least resistance is to intend to leave, but for it to eternally need more discussion, like Lords Reform which has been in progress for basically 100 years. The longer you don't do something, they easier it is to carry on not doing it.
Trouble is that no one voted for Lords reform, unlike leaving the EU.
They voted for leaving the EU, they didn't vote on *when*.
These figures show how being part of the UK protects living standards in Scotland.
Scotland weathered a dramatic slump in oil revenues last year because we are part of a United Kingdom that has at its heart a system for pooling and sharing resources across the country as a whole.
It is important that continues and the financial deal between the UK and Scottish governments, struck last year as part of the transfer of new tax and welfare powers to Holyrood, means real security for Scotland.
The fact public spending was £1,200 per head higher in Scotland than the UK as a whole also demonstrates that the United Kingdom, not the European Union, is the vital union for Scotland’s prosperity.
Or in other words Scotland is a parasite that we are better without.
Who is 'we' in this scenario? The UK is not better off without Scotland even if it is costing more per head, because the UK would be diminished in so many ways without it.
Name them.
Import duties on shortbread.
Well, when you put it like that...
But seriously, there's a lot of handwavy "security" nonsense, but really what do we get out of the Union that is worth all the preferential treatment compared to the rest of the country?
The divisions will play out in the Party before then, while negotiations are underway. But as the negotiations will happen after Art 50 is triggered, the only options would be to agree to it or to leave in chaos, so no matter what the recriminations about the specific deal, virtually everyone will sign up to it because there won't be a realistic alternative. If there is real opposition to any specific measure, that'll have already made itself felt by that point.
But the party and - I suspect - Conservative voters in the country are largely content with Leave in principle now. Most voted that way anyway and a lot of Leavers, like me, recognise that it was the will of the public and that that should be respected. The rest follows fairly naturally. We can't be part of the Single Market or customs union because that'd mean having to be remain in effect within the EU structures. The question is about the terms of access to the Market - but that's something that countries all across the world negotiate on and the UK can come to its own arrangement.
There will be pressure from some for a Hard Brexit. it might even make sense. Much depends on Juncker, Merkel, Hollande and their potential successors. Fact is that if freedom of movement genuinely is a non-negotiable for the EU, then a Hard Exit it will have to be. That kind of thinking would kill the EU because it's so far removed from what the voting publics want. However, when the tough talking begins, I don't think it will be a non-negotiable; we'll just need a quid pro quo in return.
I'm getting increasingly concerned that the establishment is regrouping and will prevent us from ever invoking A50 and leaving.
"The Game" is clearly to get Owen Who to replace Corbyn, then do everything they can to hold up and delay A50 through the Commons and Lords, presumably followed by Labour winning in 2020 on a REMAIN platform - Thus the referendum never happened and we stay (but look absurd to the rest of the world)
These are worrying times for Brexiteers, IMO.
Don't panic. Brexit will happen. It won't be the softest and it is unclear if it will be the hardest, but May would be politically destroyed if she tried to prevent it, Smith can talk a good game but Labour dare not too much given how many of their own voters backed it. It will happen.
That said, as absurd as it would look, and as unlikely as it is to happen as no way we will not have triggered article 50 by the next election, if someone did win on a Remain platform in a GE, that is technically a democratic outcome too.
We really need to get working on holographic technology so that May can appear as a hologram at the EU Council and simply state "execute article 50". I'm sure she could find some suitably mysterious robes to wear
Sky just spent about 5-10 minutes on the murdered tourist's Facebook comments and what her school said, then a few minutes saying we don't know the motives, but that a few people have focused on the Allahu Akbar phrase.
The media = Prince George The public = Blackadder
"Why on Earth would an anarchist want to kill you?" "I think it may have been you he was gunning for, sir." "Oh, hogwash! What makes you say that?" "My suspicion was first aroused by the use of the words 'death to the stupid prince'."
Australian police seem very slow on diagnosing the individual locally known as Bruce with a mental health condition. If this had been in Europe, we would already known the exact condition they suffered from, even though they weren't certain about the name of said individual.
The divisions will play out in the Party before then, while negotiations are underway. But as the negotiations will happen after Art 50 is triggered, the only options would be to agree to it or to leave in chaos, so no matter what the recriminations about the specific deal, virtually everyone will sign up to it because there won't be a realistic alternative. If there is real opposition to any specific measure, that'll have already made itself felt by that point.
But the party and - I suspect - Conservative voters in the country are largely content with Leave in principle now. Most voted that way anyway and a lot of Leavers, like me, recognise that it was the will of the public and that that should be respected. The rest follows fairly naturally. We can't be part of the Single Market or customs union because that'd mean having to be remain in effect within the EU structures. The question is about the terms of access to the Market - but that's something that countries all across the world negotiate on and the UK can come to its own arrangement.
There will be pressure from some for a Hard Brexit. it might even make sense. Much depends on Juncker, Merkel, Hollande and their potential successors. Fact is that if freedom of movement genuinely is a non-negotiable for the EU, then a Hard Exit it will have to be. That kind of thinking would kill the EU because it's so far removed from what the voting publics want. However, when the tough talking begins, I don't think it will be a non-negotiable; we'll just need a quid pro quo in return.
I'm getting increasingly concerned that the establishment is regrouping and will prevent us from ever invoking A50 and leaving.
"The Game" is clearly to get Owen Who to replace Corbyn, then do everything they can to hold up and delay A50 through the Commons and Lords, presumably followed by Labour winning in 2020 on a REMAIN platform - Thus the referendum never happened and we stay (but look absurd to the rest of the world)
These are worrying times for Brexiteers, IMO.
After the Referendum result, the EU wants shot of us. If the Establishment is sensible, they will realise this. If they are trying to cling on to membership, then UKIP will massively benefit.
Quite apart from opening themselves up to blackmail if they offered us a new deal, so that won't happen, they definitely will want us out and out forever as soon as possible. We've already disrupted things immensely by saying we want to leave, and several have gone as far as to suggest the vote was binding on us even though legally it wasn't (politically though is another story). It's also why they will never want to let us back even under extortionate terms if we came crawling back - they'd presume we'd just cause trouble again.
These figures show how being part of the UK protects living standards in Scotland.
Scotland weathered a dramatic slump in oil revenues last year because we are part of a United Kingdom that has at its heart a system for pooling and sharing resources across the country as a whole.
It is important that continues and the financial deal between the UK and Scottish governments, struck last year as part of the transfer of new tax and welfare powers to Holyrood, means real security for Scotland.
The fact public spending was £1,200 per head higher in Scotland than the UK as a whole also demonstrates that the United Kingdom, not the European Union, is the vital union for Scotland’s prosperity.
Or in other words Scotland is a parasite that we are better without.
Who is 'we' in this scenario? The UK is not better off without Scotland even if it is costing more per head, because the UK would be diminished in so many ways without it.
Name them.
My sense of national identity for a start. For me the union is much more a personal, emotional issue than anything else. I appreciate many don't feel that way.
Don't panic. Brexit will happen. It won't be the softest and it is unclear if it will be the hardest, but May would be politically destroyed if she tried to prevent it, Smith can talk a good game but Labour dare not too much given how many of their own voters backed it. It will happen.
That said, as absurd as it would look, and as unlikely as it is to happen as no way we will not have triggered article 50 by the next election, if someone did win on a Remain platform in a GE, that is technically a democratic outcome too.
Nobody's saying she'd try to prevent it, but I'm wondering if she won't try to get away with not doing it. Not only does she think it's a stupid idea, whatever particular version she picks be very unpopular, and leave a bunch of people who voted for Leave justifiably thinking they've been screwed.
Let's put this the other way around: Specifically what does she have to do by when to avoid political destruction, and what will be the mechanism for the destruction?
These figures show how being part of the UK protects living standards in Scotland.
Scotland weathered a dramatic slump in oil revenues last year because we are part of a United Kingdom that has at its heart a system for pooling and sharing resources across the country as a whole.
It is important that continues and the financial deal between the UK and Scottish governments, struck last year as part of the transfer of new tax and welfare powers to Holyrood, means real security for Scotland.
The fact public spending was £1,200 per head higher in Scotland than the UK as a whole also demonstrates that the United Kingdom, not the European Union, is the vital union for Scotland’s prosperity.
Or in other words Scotland is a parasite that we are better without.
Im happy to trade of the extra cash for the strategic and security benefits of controlling the whole island - so long as we dont let them take the p***
But that's the point; government is too weak-willed to not let them take the piss, just as it was with the EU. It is not a price worth paying.
I think it is. They are an arguably viable country who don't have that big a population so as General Wade measures are off the table in the modern world we can only keep them in the UK by consent. So Tribute is needed.
Strategically, north of Scotland is only the open sea. If they become independent then we have another power on the same island. One who historically ganged up with France to leave us facing two fronts.
This will probably get me a Turnip from Malc but realpolitik is not about fluffy bunny rabbits and niceness.
How can borrowing play a role in cutting a deficit, surely by definition borrowing funds a deficit ?
Spending Revenue - Tax Revenue = Deficit
Lots of lefties believe:
public spending = growth
Growth = greater tax take
Greater tax take = reduced deficit
Therefore : increased public spending = reduced deficit. QED
I'm sure there's a flaw somewhere...
Actually public investment on (eg) infrastructure, that private companies won't do, can provide growth that benefits everyone.
Problem is that socialists classify "p***ing money up the wall" as "investment".
There are easy examples to point to where borrowing 'properly' would have saved money in the long term. E.g. Hospitals on PFI.
But @Charles is right, a clear example is when more money into a system just gets spent on pay rises say for Doctors... there is no investment benefit there aside from fluff about 'retaining the best'.
An efficient public sector that works in complimentary terms with a private sector free of union influence where both sides hammer out contracts to mutual benefit is a bit of a centrist pipe dream I guess though Virgin / Network rail for all their faults aren't that far off this, noone wants FIRST to take over their franchise
Ian Patterson #traingate continues . Claims now that he wanted to sit with his wife. No pictures so far have showed her though
What is he doing? This is making it worse. He's admitting there were spare seats, and now the media are digging into another potentially dodgy part of his story.
From the initial reports (yesterday) it looks as though she was there:
Don't panic. Brexit will happen. It won't be the softest and it is unclear if it will be the hardest, but May would be politically destroyed if she tried to prevent it, Smith can talk a good game but Labour dare not too much given how many of their own voters backed it. It will happen.
That said, as absurd as it would look, and as unlikely as it is to happen as no way we will not have triggered article 50 by the next election, if someone did win on a Remain platform in a GE, that is technically a democratic outcome too.
Nobody's saying she'd try to prevent it, but I'm wondering if she won't try to get away with not doing it. Not only does she think it's a stupid idea, whatever particular version she picks be very unpopular, and leave a bunch of people who voted for Leave justifiably thinking they've been screwed.
Let's put this the other way around: Specifically what does she have to do by when to avoid political destruction, and what will be the mechanism for the destruction?
If we haven't declared article 50 before the start of 2018 I think she will be in real trouble as the core Brexiteers MPs erupt into open warfare, as that would suggest we might not even be officially out by the next GE.
And trying to get away with not doing it will be seen as trying to prevent it - the core Brexit gang are already keeping very careful watch of anything that looks like rolling back, we even see anything less than hard Brexit being called a betrayal, part of the pressure. If there are significant delays or rollbacks, many many more will rise up.
The divisions will play out in the Party before then, while negotiations are underway. But as the negotiations will happen after Art 50 is triggered, the only options would be to agree to it or to leave in chaos, so no matter what the recriminations about the specific deal, virtually everyone will sign up to it because there won't be a realistic alternative. If there is real opposition to any specific measure, that'll have already made itself felt by that point.
There will be pressure from some for a Hard Brexit. it might even make sense. Much depends on Juncker, Merkel, Hollande and their potential successors. Fact is that if freedom of movement genuinely is a non-negotiable for the EU, then a Hard Exit it will have to be. That kind of thinking would kill the EU because it's so far removed from what the voting publics want. However, when the tough talking begins, I don't think it will be a non-negotiable; we'll just need a quid pro quo in return.
I'm getting increasingly concerned that the establishment is regrouping and will prevent us from ever invoking A50 and leaving.
"The Game" is clearly to get Owen Who to replace Corbyn, then do everything they can to hold up and delay A50 through the Commons and Lords, presumably followed by Labour winning in 2020 on a REMAIN platform - Thus the referendum never happened and we stay (but look absurd to the rest of the world)
These are worrying times for Brexiteers, IMO.
After the Referendum result, the EU wants shot of us. If the Establishment is sensible, they will realise this. If they are trying to cling on to membership, then UKIP will massively benefit.
Quite apart from opening themselves up to blackmail if they offered us a new deal, so that won't happen, they definitely will want us out and out forever as soon as possible. We've already disrupted things immensely by saying we want to leave, and several have gone as far as to suggest the vote was binding on us even though legally it wasn't (politically though is another story). It's also why they will never want to let us back even under extortionate terms if we came crawling back - they'd presume we'd just cause trouble again.
If we don't leave, we're poisoning the well for the rest of the EU, and our relationship with them will deteriorate steadily. It's like telling a spouse that your marriage is over, but then not doing anything about it.
Push it too hard on Traingate and people might forget that even if he had a valid point to make, he definitely misrepresented the situation (whether he wanted to sit with the wife, or his staff, or whatever, he said it was ram packed and there were plenty of seats if one made the effort). Weirdly, I find sometimes if even a valid point is pressed too hard people start to stop caring (like me on the NHS).
My thoughts are some bright spark within Corbyn’s entourage came up with the idea of filming a spin-op whilst en route to Newcastle which would add a little glitter to their rail nationalisation meme.
Don't think it was planned, however Corbyn agreed to this, without considering either the presents of CCTV, or the boss of Virgin objecting to his brand being maligned. – The rest is history, or more like next week’s chip wrapper imho.
If we haven't declared article 50 before the start of 2018 I think she will be in real trouble as the core Brexiteers MPs erupt into open warfare, as that would suggest we might not even be officially out by the next GE.
What are they going to do specifically? I mean, they could challenge her for the leadership, but if she's looking competent and throwing bits of unrelated red meat at the membership (grammar schools etc) and has a good story to tell about needing to work with Scotland and Northern Ireland or whatever it's not obvious that they'd beat her.
The divisions will play out in the Party before then, while negotiations are underway. But as the negotiations will happen after Art 50 is triggered, the only options would be to agree to it or to leave in chaos, so no matter what the recriminations about the specific deal, virtually everyone will sign up to it because there won't be a realistic alternative. If there is real opposition to any specific measure, that'll have already made itself felt by that point.
But the party and Conservative voters in the country are largely content with Leave in principle now. Most voted that way anyway and a lot of Leavers recognise that it was the will of the public and that that should be respected. The rest follows fairly naturally. We can't be part of the Single Market or customs union because that'd mean having to be remain in effect within the EU structures. The question is about the terms of access to the Market - but that's something that countries all across the world negotiate on and the UK can come to its own arrangement.
There will be pressure from some for a Hard Brexit. it might even make sense. Much depends on Juncker, Merkel, Hollande and their potential successors. Fact is that if freedom of movement genuinely is a non-negotiable for the EU, then a Hard Exit it will have to be. That kind of thinking would kill the EU because it's so far removed from what the voting publics want. However, when the tough talking begins, I don't think it will be a non-negotiable; we'll just need a quid pro quo in return.
I'm getting increasingly concerned that the establishment is regrouping and will prevent us from ever invoking A50 and leaving.
"The Game" is clearly to get Owen Who to replace Corbyn, then do everything they can to hold up and delay A50 through the Commons and Lords, presumably followed by Labour winning in 2020 on a REMAIN platform - Thus the referendum never happened and we stay (but look absurd to the rest of the world)
These are worrying times for Brexiteers, IMO.
That's a little bit paranoid. It's debatable as to whether A50 needs parliamentary approval (I'd argue not, though it might be wise to seek it anyway), and if it is asked for, the Commons will almost certainly give it. If Labour and Lib Dem peers block it, that'd be their downfall. Even if they did, the government could Parliament Act a single-line bill authorising A50 through parliament in time for Brexit to be completed by May 2020.
But given a choice between Theresa May and Owen Smith, I've little doubt as to who the Establishment would prefer. That said, I think the whole concept of an Establishment is greatly overplayed. There isn't the unity of background, upbringing, social life, professional contact - in short, a unity of worldview - that made the notion valid in the 1950s or 60s. This is a much more diverse country now
The divisions will play out in the Party before then, while negotiations are underway. But as the negotiations will happen after Art 50 is triggered, the only options would be to agree to it or to leave in chaos, so no matter what the recriminations about the specific deal, virtually everyone will sign up to it because there won't be a realistic alternative. If there is real opposition to any specific measure, that'll have already made itself felt by that point.
There will be pressure from some for a Hard Brexit. it might even make sense. Much depends on Juncker, Merkel, Hollande and their potential successors. Fact is that if freedom of movement genuinely is a non-negotiable for the EU, then a Hard Exit it will have to be. That kind of thinking would kill the EU because it's so far removed from what the voting publics want. However, when the tough talking begins, I don't think it will be a non-negotiable; we'll just need a quid pro quo in return.
I'm getting increasingly concerned that the establishment is regrouping and will prevent us from ever invoking A50 and leaving.
"The Game" is clearly to get Owen Who to replace Corbyn, then do everything they can to hold up and delay A50 through the Commons and Lords, presumably followed by Labour winning in 2020 on a REMAIN platform - Thus the referendum never happened and we stay (but look absurd to the rest of the world)
These are worrying times for Brexiteers, IMO.
After the Referendum result, the EU wants shot of us. If the Establishment is sensible, they will realise this. If they are trying to cling on to membership, then UKIP will massively benefit.
Quite apart from opening themselves up to blackmail if they offered us a new deal, so that won't happen, they definitely will want us out and out forever as soon as possible. We've already disrupted things immensely by saying we want to leave, and several have gone as far as to suggest the vote was binding on us even though legally it wasn't (politically though is another story). It's also why they will never want to let us back even under extortionate terms if we came crawling back - they'd presume we'd just cause trouble again.
If we don't leave, we're poisoning the well for the rest of the EU, and our relationship with them will deteriorate steadily. It's like telling a spouse that your marriage is over, but then not doing anything about it.
It's one reason I came over to Brexit - even if we remained, we were likely to still be reluctant and bitter about every new integrationist thing the majority of others wanted to do, and the bitterness would just fester away.
My thoughts are some bright spark within Corbyn’s entourage came up with the idea of filming a spin-op whilst en route to Newcastle which would add a little glitter to their rail nationalisation meme.
Don't think it was planned, however Corbyn agreed to this, without considering either the presents of CCTV, or the boss of Virgin objecting to his brand being maligned. – The rest is history, or more like next week’s chip wrapper imho.
Reminds me of that episode of the Thick of It where she is being interviewed on the train and has to do a shadow cabinet reshuffle in the vestibule lol.
Saw Owen Smith on BBC this morning. All over the place. It is a ridiculous election brought about by apparent imcompetence of everyone, not least the Deputy Leader. At least they will unify in a months time. Is David Milliband waiting in the wings. Problem no chance of being elected by the current membership. This should present an opportunity for the Lib Dems if they play it right and get the right breaks. Tuition fees is more associated with Clegg than the party so they have a chance.
Apart from the fact they have just 8 MPS, their activists are getting old and are pretty much moribund in large swathes of the UK.
Lib Dem membership 2013: 43000 Lib Dem membership 2015: 61000 Lib Dem membership June 2016: 74,000
These figures show how being part of the UK protects living standards in Scotland.
Scotland weathered a dramatic slump in oil revenues last year because we are part of a United Kingdom that has at its heart a system for pooling and sharing resources across the country as a whole.
It is important that continues and the financial deal between the UK and Scottish governments, struck last year as part of the transfer of new tax and welfare powers to Holyrood, means real security for Scotland.
The fact public spending was £1,200 per head higher in Scotland than the UK as a whole also demonstrates that the United Kingdom, not the European Union, is the vital union for Scotland’s prosperity.
Or in other words Scotland is a parasite that we are better without.
Who is 'we' in this scenario? The UK is not better off without Scotland even if it is costing more per head, because the UK would be diminished in so many ways without it.
Name them.
My sense of national identity for a start. For me the union is much more a personal, emotional issue than anything else. I appreciate many don't feel that way.
I suggest that's not a very good reason why the UK in not better off without, nor justifies the preferential treatment Scotland is given compared to the rest of us.
The fact there is such a dearth of good reasons suggests to me the Union has run its course.
Saw Owen Smith on BBC this morning. All over the place. It is a ridiculous election brought about by apparent imcompetence of everyone, not least the Deputy Leader. At least they will unify in a months time. Is David Milliband waiting in the wings. Problem no chance of being elected by the current membership. This should present an opportunity for the Lib Dems if they play it right and get the right breaks. Tuition fees is more associated with Clegg than the party so they have a chance.
Apart from the fact they have just 8 MPS, their activists are getting old and are pretty much moribund in large swathes of the UK.
Lib Dem membership 2013: 43000 Lib Dem membership 2015: 61000 Lib Dem membership June 2016: 74,000
The divisions will play out in the Party before then, while negotiations are underway. But as the negotiations will happen after Art 50 is triggered, the only options would be to agree to it or to leave in chaos, so n.
I'm getting increasingly concerned that the establishment is regrouping and will prevent us from ever invoking A50 and leaving.
"The Game" is clearly to get Owen Who to replace Corbyn, then do everything they can to hold up and delay A50 through the Commons and Lords, presumably followed by Labour winning in 2020 on a REMAIN platform - Thus the referendum never happened and we stay (but look absurd to the rest of the world)
These are worrying times for Brexiteers, IMO.
After the Referendum result, the EU wants shot of us. If the Establishment is sensible, they will realise this. If they are trying to cling on to membership, then UKIP will massively benefit.
Quite apart from opening themselves up to blackmail if they offered us a new deal, so that won't happen, they definitely will want us out and out forever as soon as possible. We've already disrupted things immensely by saying we want to leave, and several have gone as far as to suggest the vote was binding on us even though legally it wasn't (politically though is another story). It's also why they will never want to let us back even under extortionate terms if we came crawling back - they'd presume we'd just cause trouble again.
Yes. If we do not leave of our own accord then the bouncers will address the issue.
To me the combination of Brexiteer fundamentalist Bitter Enders and Europeans fed up with our antics will make a hard Brexit certain. Better to get on with it then construct a deal afterwards.
The phoney war will end soon and so will our Schrodingers position where we are similtaneously fully in and fully out. Time to open the box and see if the kitty is dead.
Saw Owen Smith on BBC this morning. All over the place. It is a ridiculous election brought about by apparent imcompetence of everyone, not least the Deputy Leader. At least they will unify in a months time. Is David Milliband waiting in the wings. Problem no chance of being elected by the current membership. This should present an opportunity for the Lib Dems if they play it right and get the right breaks. Tuition fees is more associated with Clegg than the party so they have a chance.
Apart from the fact they have just 8 MPS, their activists are getting old and are pretty much moribund in large swathes of the UK.
Lib Dem membership 2013: 43000 Lib Dem membership 2015: 61000 Lib Dem membership June 2016: 74,000
If we haven't declared article 50 before the start of 2018 I think she will be in real trouble as the core Brexiteers MPs erupt into open warfare, as that would suggest we might not even be officially out by the next GE.
What are they going to do specifically? I mean, they could challenge her for the leadership, but if she's looking competent and throwing bits of unrelated red meat at the membership (grammar schools etc) and has a good story to tell about needing to work with Scotland and Northern Ireland or whatever it's not obvious that they'd beat her.
I think a challenge would work, personally. If she hasn't gotten to a place where we can declare by 2018 she will hardly look competent, economic hard times were due regardless of the Brexit vote so that may hit her too, and in terms of Scotland and NI, it's the argument most likely to work on me (had we a guarantee Scotland would not vote to leave so long as we Remained, I'd have voted Remain), but it's already factored in, we all voted as one and the outcome was clear, if in 2 more years they haven't prepared for it well that's another blow on the competence.
Saw Owen Smith on BBC this morning. All over the place. It is a ridiculous election brought about by apparent imcompetence of everyone, not least the Deputy Leader. At least they will unify in a months time. Is David Milliband waiting in the wings. Problem no chance of being elected by the current membership. This should present an opportunity for the Lib Dems if they play it right and get the right breaks. Tuition fees is more associated with Clegg than the party so they have a chance.
Apart from the fact they have just 8 MPS, their activists are getting old and are pretty much moribund in large swathes of the UK.
Lib Dem membership 2013: 43000 Lib Dem membership 2015: 61000 Lib Dem membership June 2016: 74,000
Labour's chances at the next election are being chuffed to bits.
The disappointing aspect of this is there is a proper serious debate to be had about transport provision in this country and in their own ways Corbyn and Branson have undermined that debate.
What sort of debate is Corbyn's 'we'll nationalise it'?
How does that explain how there'll be more trains and more seats?
In contrast, Virgin:
On the East Coast route, £140m is being invested to create a more personalised travel experience. We have already invested £21m to completely revamp our existing fleet and customers can now benefit from 42 additional services (22,000 extra seats) per week between Edinburgh and London. 2018 will see the introduction of completely new Azuma trains being built in the UK by Hitachi.
It is a morsel of old socialist meat to throw to the dogs to keep them quiet. Mr Corbyn may or may not believe it, but he is reckless to the consequences.
I'd identify others:
Fox hunting for Blair. Independent schools, and a nationalised education system. Recently opposition to the mythical privatisation of the NHS, and "toff" bankers.
It is about appealing to the neanderthal sub-brain of his supporters.
The Tories have had their moments. Section 28 will still get older members muttering into their beer.
The difference being that Theresa May is not promoting a new Section 28, while Corbyn is promoting rail nationalisation, fake narratives about NHS privatisation etc.
Saw Owen Smith on BBC this morning. All over the place. It is a ridiculous election brought about by apparent imcompetence of everyone, not least the Deputy Leader. At least they will unify in a months time. Is David Milliband waiting in the wings. Problem no chance of being elected by the current membership. This should present an opportunity for the Lib Dems if they play it right and get the right breaks. Tuition fees is more associated with Clegg than the party so they have a chance.
Apart from the fact they have just 8 MPS, their activists are getting old and are pretty much moribund in large swathes of the UK.
Lib Dem membership 2013: 43000 Lib Dem membership 2015: 61000 Lib Dem membership June 2016: 74,000
My thoughts are some bright spark within Corbyn’s entourage came up with the idea of filming a spin-op whilst en route to Newcastle which would add a little glitter to their rail nationalisation meme.
Don't think it was planned, however Corbyn agreed to this, without considering either the presents of CCTV, or the boss of Virgin objecting to his brand being maligned. – The rest is history, or more like next week’s chip wrapper imho.
Reminds me of that episode of the Thick of It where she is being interviewed on the train and has to do a shadow cabinet reshuffle in the vestibule lol.
Yes, LOL. The whole episode is very The Thick of It.
The other thing that I think is odd about what's been revealed by the train incident is that Jezza has time to sit on long train journeys and read magazines. I am pretty sure any other Leader of the Opposition would use the time to be ploughing through mountains of ideas, policy proposals, meeting notes, campaign plans etc etc. Once again imho it has been shown that JC is a rank amateur.
These figures show how being part of the UK protects living standards in Scotland.
Scotland weathered a dramatic slump in oil revenues last year because we are part of a United Kingdom that has at its heart a system for pooling and sharing resources across the country as a whole.
It is important that continues and the financial deal between the UK and Scottish governments, struck last year as part of the transfer of new tax and welfare powers to Holyrood, means real security for Scotland.
The fact public spending was £1,200 per head higher in Scotland than the UK as a whole also demonstrates that the United Kingdom, not the European Union, is the vital union for Scotland’s prosperity.
Or in other words Scotland is a parasite that we are better without.
Who is 'we' in this scenario? The UK is not better off without Scotland even if it is costing more per head, because the UK would be diminished in so many ways without it.
Name them.
My sense of national identity for a start. For me the union is much more a personal, emotional issue than anything else. I appreciate many don't feel that way.
I suggest that's not a very good reason why the UK in not better off without, nor justifies the preferential treatment Scotland is given compared to the rest of us.
The fact there is such a dearth of good reasons suggests to me the Union has run its course.
I didn't bother to include the other reasons because my primary one is sufficient - national identity is important to lots of people (that 50% of scots at least do not share my view of national identity is why the SNP are so popular). I happen to think the Union has run its course because not enough people do care enough about the union, about the other nations, over their individual one, but I shall fight it tooth and nail. I want to get to a point no one gets preferential treatment (unless a certain amount is deserved, eg one needs more help, to a degree), but it may indeed be too late.
Saw Owen Smith on BBC this morning. All over the place. It is a ridiculous election brought about by apparent imcompetence of everyone, not least the Deputy Leader. At least they will unify in a months time. Is David Milliband waiting in the wings. Problem no chance of being elected by the current membership. This should present an opportunity for the Lib Dems if they play it right and get the right breaks. Tuition fees is more associated with Clegg than the party so they have a chance.
Apart from the fact they have just 8 MPS, their activists are getting old and are pretty much moribund in large swathes of the UK.
Lib Dem membership 2013: 43000 Lib Dem membership 2015: 61000 Lib Dem membership June 2016: 74,000
Saw Owen Smith on BBC this morning. All over the place. It is a ridiculous election brought about by apparent imcompetence of everyone, not least the Deputy Leader. At least they will unify in a months time. Is David Milliband waiting in the wings. Problem no chance of being elected by the current membership. This should present an opportunity for the Lib Dems if they play it right and get the right breaks. Tuition fees is more associated with Clegg than the party so they have a chance.
Apart from the fact they have just 8 MPS, their activists are getting old and are pretty much moribund in large swathes of the UK.
Lib Dem membership 2013: 43000 Lib Dem membership 2015: 61000 Lib Dem membership June 2016: 74,000
It makes sense - at present the internal division is looking impossible to mend in the short to medium term (albeit it is the most divisive time), and hoping things will improve in future to avoid taking the hard decision to realise the party is no longer the one you joined and fought for is potentially a cop out.
On the other hand, it assumes things will be at least just as bad with a split as without, so why not be honest and bold, but the MPs don't think it will be just as bad. Bad, but not just as bad. Damaging the brand formally ruins it.
You would have to be a complete fool and a particularly arrogant one at that to seriously question the "economic viability" of an independent Scotland. To do it on the basis of the GERS analysis would add ignorant to that description.
This is a subject I happen to know something about since I had a (unionist) friend a few years back who was involved in its compilation and bored me to tears with its history and detail.
It was devised way back by Ian Lang as Scottish Secretary as a propaganda weapon to use against Labour devolutionists. The then Chancellor Ken Clarke advised strongly against it pointing out that in years of high oil revenues it would show the opposite to what was required. He was right. Indeed this is only the second GERS in the last twenty five years which doesn't show revenues per head in Scotland higher than the UK average.
It does not tell you about he finances of an independent Scotland since not only would they make different choices eg on defence, but that money spent on central services which is ascribed to Scotland in GERS would be spent in Scotland and thus have an economic impact on revenues in Scotland. This point was made openly a number of years ago by Dr Andrew Goudie who was the Economic Adviser to the Labour/Liberal Executive.
If you conducted a GERS type execrcise for every "region" of the UK then only London would emerge with a below the UK average deficit. Does this mean that London subsidises the rest of the country or does it mean that London prospers on the back of the rest of the country. In fact in terms of GDP per head (even without oil) Scotland is the closest to the UK average at 98 per cent and including oil probably has the only surplus on the balance of payments of any UK region or nation.
Finally you should note that despite all of the above the GERS deficit for Scotland is less in percentage GDP terms than the UK one in 2009/10!
Miss Plato, I missed what Smith said about mental health disorder, though I imagine those who suffer from such are also not pleased to now be the media scapegoat for Islamist terrorism because the media's decided to have a minimalist reporting approach [to be kind].
This is quite typical of my Corbynistas in my timeline.
Funnily enough, most voted Brexit too.
Qeld My god. Still talking about fucking train seats. While Owen Smith is free to hate women & mental health sufferers as much as he wants.
Guido has some nice footage of Corbynista loons just standing and chanting 'Jeremy' over and over at some rally or other. And people say it isn't a personality cult that is eating the Labour party alive.
The other thing that I think is odd about what's been revealed by the train incident is that Jezza has time to sit on long train journeys and read magazines. I am pretty sure any other Leader of the Opposition would use the time to be ploughing through mountains of ideas, policy proposals, meeting notes, campaign plans etc etc. Once again imho it has been shown that JC is a rank amateur.
Absolutely. No one has raised this as an issue, but it's what the media should be talking about.
You would have to be a complete fool and a particularly arrogant one at that to seriously question the "economic viability" of an independent Scotland. To do it on the basis of the GERS analysis would add ignorant to that description.
The economic viability of an independent Scotland is unquestionable?
The other thing that I think is odd about what's been revealed by the train incident is that Jezza has time to sit on long train journeys and read magazines. I am pretty sure any other Leader of the Opposition would use the time to be ploughing through mountains of ideas, policy proposals, meeting notes, campaign plans etc etc. Once again imho it has been shown that JC is a rank amateur.
Absolutely. No one has raised this as an issue, but it's what the media should be talking about.
Miss Plato, I missed what Smith said about mental health disorder, though I imagine those who suffer from such are also not pleased to now be the media scapegoat for Islamist terrorism because the media's decided to have a minimalist reporting approach [to be kind].
Owen said he wouldn't be some lunatic running the Party. Then said he was talking about himself, not Jezza...
Miss Plato, I think that's not much, to be honest. A lot of terms have an overlap (crazy being the most obvious). Smith's problem is that he appears to be daft as a brush.
The other thing that I think is odd about what's been revealed by the train incident is that Jezza has time to sit on long train journeys and read magazines. I am pretty sure any other Leader of the Opposition would use the time to be ploughing through mountains of ideas, policy proposals, meeting notes, campaign plans etc etc. Once again imho it has been shown that JC is a rank amateur.
Absolutely. No one has raised this as an issue, but it's what the media should be talking about.
Yep. I mean where exactly is the policy development process? Completely moribund as far as I am aware unless a PBer knows more information. Even McDonnell's economic council of advisors has stopped meeting because they have all resigned.
But then a personality cult doesn't need policy or even a manifesto. Just feel the love people, feel the love...
Saw Owen Smith on BBC this morning. All over the place. It is a ridiculous election brought about by apparent imcompetence of everyone, not least the Deputy Leader. At least they will unify in a months time. Is David Milliband waiting in the wings. Problem no chance of being elected by the current membership. This should present an opportunity for the Lib Dems if they play it right and get the right breaks. Tuition fees is more associated with Clegg than the party so they have a chance.
Apart from the fact they have just 8 MPS, their activists are getting old and are pretty much moribund in large swathes of the UK.
Lib Dem membership 2013: 43000 Lib Dem membership 2015: 61000 Lib Dem membership June 2016: 74,000
Comments
An independent Scotland is a country much like Iran or Russia, a fall in oil prices trashes the economy and finances.
So from a business / profit point of view if the freight goes then close it.
The political point of view is though a little different....so I doubt it would happen outside a 1930s type severe economic situation.
I agree that Germany should get defence spending back to 2% - especially given they can't plead poverty.
Surely an intergovernmental approach would be better than centralising it to the EU where defence and military objectives are fairly non-aligned. A new Eastern defence pact which invites the 10 Eastern European nations, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, France and the UK makes much more sense than an EU army controlled from Brussels with the likes of Portugal, Italy, Spain and Greece having any kind if say on the defence posture wrt to Russia. That's assuming the US withdraws from the protection of Europe, which I don't think is on the cards, even if Trump manages to win I don't think Congress would ever allow the US to withdraw from NATO.
"The Game" is clearly to get Owen Who to replace Corbyn, then do everything they can to hold up and delay A50 through the Commons and Lords, presumably followed by Labour winning in 2020 on a REMAIN platform - Thus the referendum never happened and we stay (but look absurd to the rest of the world)
These are worrying times for Brexiteers, IMO.
https://www.twitter.com/camusson/status/768376387891781632
Huge Grangemouth plant - INEOS willing to develop onshore fracking in the central belt.....but they've moved their fracking operation to England:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-fracking-policy-prompts-ineos-to-send-experts-to-england-1-4140648
Spending Revenue - Tax Revenue = Deficit
Can you imagine him during a general election campaign?
'Branson did to to knock BA out of the headlines'
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37175038
#traingate continues . Claims now that he wanted to sit with his wife. No pictures so far have showed her though
public spending = growth
Growth = greater tax take
Greater tax take = reduced deficit
Therefore : increased public spending = reduced deficit. QED
I'm sure there's a flaw somewhere...
That said, as absurd as it would look, and as unlikely as it is to happen as no way we will not have triggered article 50 by the next election, if someone did win on a Remain platform in a GE, that is technically a democratic outcome too.
The media = Prince George
The public = Blackadder
"Why on Earth would an anarchist want to kill you?"
"I think it may have been you he was gunning for, sir."
"Oh, hogwash! What makes you say that?"
"My suspicion was first aroused by the use of the words 'death to the stupid prince'."
I've seen dogs certain of a bone buried in the ground before them less keen to furiously dig a massive hole.
But seriously, there's a lot of handwavy "security" nonsense, but really what do we get out of the Union that is worth all the preferential treatment compared to the rest of the country?
Actually public investment on (eg) infrastructure, that private companies won't do, can provide growth that benefits everyone.
Problem is that socialists classify "p***ing money up the wall" as "investment".
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/752538090070241280
There you go, saved time.
Let's put this the other way around: Specifically what does she have to do by when to avoid political destruction, and what will be the mechanism for the destruction?
Strategically, north of Scotland is only the open sea. If they become independent then we have another power on the same island. One who historically ganged up with France to leave us facing two fronts.
This will probably get me a Turnip from Malc but realpolitik is not about fluffy bunny rabbits and niceness.
But @Charles is right, a clear example is when more money into a system just gets spent on pay rises say for Doctors... there is no investment benefit there aside from fluff about 'retaining the best'.
An efficient public sector that works in complimentary terms with a private sector free of union influence where both sides hammer out contracts to mutual benefit is a bit of a centrist pipe dream I guess though
Virgin / Network rail for all their faults aren't that far off this, noone wants FIRST to take over their franchise
In which @MartinBelam live blogs taking the 11am train to Newcastle. Peak silly season. https://t.co/jLoN4Hcmf0
So this train is definitely not "ram-packed" - we'll be asking people what they think about @jeremycorbyn & UK rail https://t.co/zzjgSW54rU
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/23/jeremy-corbyn-virgin-trains-disputes-claim-over-lack-of-seats
What's more intriguing is this mystery family 'upgraded to First Class' - from a coach where you can't reserve seats.....
And trying to get away with not doing it will be seen as trying to prevent it - the core Brexit gang are already keeping very careful watch of anything that looks like rolling back, we even see anything less than hard Brexit being called a betrayal, part of the pressure. If there are significant delays or rollbacks, many many more will rise up.
Don't think it was planned, however Corbyn agreed to this, without considering either the presents of CCTV, or the boss of Virgin objecting to his brand being maligned. – The rest is history, or more like next week’s chip wrapper imho.
But given a choice between Theresa May and Owen Smith, I've little doubt as to who the Establishment would prefer. That said, I think the whole concept of an Establishment is greatly overplayed. There isn't the unity of background, upbringing, social life, professional contact - in short, a unity of worldview - that made the notion valid in the 1950s or 60s. This is a much more diverse country now
Lib Dem membership 2015: 61000
Lib Dem membership June 2016: 74,000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats
Obviously not at all moribund in a lot of places...
The fact there is such a dearth of good reasons suggests to me the Union has run its course.
To me the combination of Brexiteer fundamentalist Bitter Enders and Europeans fed up with our antics will make a hard Brexit certain. Better to get on with it then construct a deal afterwards.
The phoney war will end soon and so will our Schrodingers position where we are similtaneously fully in and fully out. Time to open the box and see if the kitty is dead.
The other thing that I think is odd about what's been revealed by the train incident is that Jezza has time to sit on long train journeys and read magazines. I am pretty sure any other Leader of the Opposition would use the time to be ploughing through mountains of ideas, policy proposals, meeting notes, campaign plans etc etc. Once again imho it has been shown that JC is a rank amateur.
On the other hand, it assumes things will be at least just as bad with a split as without, so why not be honest and bold, but the MPs don't think it will be just as bad. Bad, but not just as bad. Damaging the brand formally ruins it.
Funnily enough, most voted Brexit too.
Qeld
My god. Still talking about fucking train seats. While Owen Smith is free to hate women & mental health sufferers as much as he wants.
You would have to be a complete fool and a particularly arrogant one at that to seriously question the "economic viability" of an independent Scotland. To do it on the basis of the GERS analysis would add ignorant to that description.
This is a subject I happen to know something about since I had a (unionist) friend a few years back who was involved in its compilation and bored me to tears with its history and detail.
It was devised way back by Ian Lang as Scottish Secretary as a propaganda weapon to use against Labour devolutionists. The then Chancellor Ken Clarke advised strongly against it pointing out that in years of high oil revenues it would show the opposite to what was required. He was right. Indeed this is only the second GERS in the last twenty five years which doesn't show revenues per head in Scotland higher than the UK average.
It does not tell you about he finances of an independent Scotland since not only would they make different choices eg on defence, but that money spent on central services which is ascribed to Scotland in GERS would be spent in Scotland and thus have an economic impact on revenues in Scotland. This point was made openly a number of years ago by Dr Andrew Goudie who was the Economic Adviser to the Labour/Liberal Executive.
If you conducted a GERS type execrcise for every "region" of the UK then only London would emerge with a below the UK average deficit. Does this mean that London subsidises the rest of the country or does it mean that London prospers on the back of the rest of the country. In fact in terms of GDP per head (even without oil) Scotland is the closest to the UK average at 98 per cent and including oil probably has the only surplus on the balance of payments of any UK region or nation.
Finally you should note that despite all of the above the GERS deficit for Scotland is less in percentage GDP terms than the UK one in 2009/10!
But then a personality cult doesn't need policy or even a manifesto. Just feel the love people, feel the love...
I think it is rather a large assertion against a party which has a membership up 75% in 3 years.
Can anyone give me a list of the "swathes of the country" where LibDems are moribund - say 3 or 4 out of 10 Government Regions?
Perhaps Jonathon even has a bar chart?