Yes, there's a nasty fascism creeping in about Brexit and any of those who challenge its proponents' worldview. SeanT called Remainers traitors as a term of common abuse. Several idiots on here actually believe it.
SeanT is SeanT - MalcolmG with richer prose. I got bored about the tenth time he had a go at me and haven't really bewen bothered since.
But it does feel odd that Brexiteers aren't more relaxed, magnaminous, etc. I don't think they are quite sure they are relaly going to get what they want, insofar as they know what they want.
The fact that there are a significant number of continuity Remainers working as hard as they can to frustrate the democratically-expressed will of the British people might just possibly have a little something to do with that.
As is their right, since we live in a parliamentary democracy.
If James O'Keefe told me water was wet and the sky was blue I'd be asking for corroboration from independent sources before I believed him.
You really are the most partisan ninny - this covert footage has resulted in two very senior DNC figures getting the push - and possibly up for criminal charges.
I'm genuinely amazed at the handwaving on here - 99% don't have a vote and yet acting like our lives depend on it.
If I see another 'there's no voter fraud' claim, I'll - it's like claiming MPs didn't cheat their expenses.
If its handwaving to say that a Trump election will cause us in the UK untold extra problems then I'm waving. Blowing up half the Middle East because someone sent him an offensive tweet and he was in a bad mood that day will have plenty of implications for us.
And this waving of hands does precisely what since the number of people on this forum that have a vote in the USA can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Well you could argue that about a lot of the discussion on here. I can't vote in Witney, and nor can almost any other PBer I suspect. It's all potential background to the betting
I thought Parliament had to agree to a second referendum for it to have any validity?
The British parliament would have to agree for it to be formally binding on Westminster. But I think they'd have a problem just ignoring it.
I suppose they might conceivably say, "You voted to leave but your referendum is illegitimate, so we'll schedule our own", then try to game the question and the timing to make that one harder to win.
If Sturgeon asked May to green light a new referendum and May said No, it would be an absolute gift for Sturgeon. It could even be what she is counting on.
But what could she do with such a 'gift'? Supposing Westminster stated that there will be no further Referendum on Independence until 2035 - ie a generation after the last one! - what could Sturgeon and the SNP do in response? Given that the SNP already has 56 of the 59 Scottish seats what would Westminster have to lose from taking such a position?
On liberalism, the site is predominently Cameroonish, i.e. socially liberal and mildly conservative. The 25% of the population who really like Corbyn is under-represented (BJO, me, and er...) as are the hard right, though plato seems to be moving to fill the gap. The most interesting posts IMO are from the people like DavidL who one can't quite predict!
Where do you get the claim that 25% of the population "really like Corbyn"?
25% may be willing to vote Labour despite (not because of) Corbyn.
I asked you a direct question last week when I joined the site that you haven't acknowledged or answered.
You posted that there was no hypocrisy with politicians denying the population the choice between grammar schools and comprehensives while sending their own children to Grammars, and made an analogy with health provision.
I think a better analogy would be to imagine there were hospitals that only treated patients who didn't smoke, didn't drink more than 14 units of alcohol per week, were the correct BMI & didn't take illegal drugs. These hospitals were free at the point of use & considered the equal of private hospitals, but there were very few of them about and they were concentrated in one or two counties.
There was also a very expensive (though cheaper than private healthcare) drug on sale in certain shops, that could hoodwink the test so that even smokers, drinkers, drug takers and the morbidly obese could pass it and have access these hospitals.
Would it be ok with you if politicians used these hospitals for themselves and their children, while refusing to allow similar hospitals to be opened in poorer areas where people living healthier lifestyles than the politicians, and those unable to afford the magic drug (private tuition), were given inferior treatment, had longer waiting lists and more crowded wards?
Hi and (obviously belated) welcome to the site. I didn't see your message, sorry - I'm moving house and a bit infrequently on at the moment.
In reply: no. My view is that it's reasonable for politicians to do the best for their families in the current situation, while doing everything they can to ensure that inequities in the current situation are brought to an end. Your scenario foresees the politicians doing the former but not the latter - indeed "refusing" the latter.
I think that politicians should normally avoid buying their way to better treatment themselves (e.g. I use NHS medical and dental care), so that they experience the normal situation personally, but shouldn't project that onto their possibly apolitical families if they're in a position to help them (I have paid for private treatment a while back for a relative who was faced with a two-year waiting list for treatment for a condition causing severe suffering).
There are always extreme cases, of course. Would I refuse private treatment if it was the only way I could save my life? Not sure.
An attempt at an honest answer, even if fudged at the edge!
"The SNP leader told US voters not to vote for Donald Trump ahead of the election despite her party's once cosy relationship with the presidential hopeful."
Given how Obama's intervention in the referendum went down like a bucket of cold sick, I'm surprised she didn't see the wisdom in the STFU school of diplomacy.
Except this isn't really about stopping US voters going trump. Obviously no trump wavering American cares what a regional politician in the UK thinks. She's doing this to play to her own supporters, who will generally hate trump. Makes her look like someone taking a stand against him.
If James O'Keefe told me water was wet and the sky was blue I'd be asking for corroboration from independent sources before I believed him.
You really are the most partisan ninny - this covert footage has resulted in two very senior DNC figures getting the push - and possibly up for criminal charges.
I'm genuinely amazed at the handwaving on here - 99% don't have a vote and yet acting like our lives depend on it.
If I see another 'there's no voter fraud' claim, I'll - it's like claiming MPs didn't cheat their expenses.
If its handwaving to say that a Trump election will cause us in the UK untold extra problems then I'm waving. Blowing up half the Middle East because someone sent him an offensive tweet and he was in a bad mood that day will have plenty of implications for us.
And this waving of hands does precisely what since the number of people on this forum that have a vote in the USA can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
So what? This is a politics site as well as a betting one, if you don't like people discussing politics here then that's odd to say the least.
If James O'Keefe told me water was wet and the sky was blue I'd be asking for corroboration from independent sources before I believed him.
You really are the most partisan ninny - this covert footage has resulted in two very senior DNC figures getting the push - and possibly up for criminal charges.
I'm genuinely amazed at the handwaving on here - 99% don't have a vote and yet acting like our lives depend on it.
If I see another 'there's no voter fraud' claim, I'll - it's like claiming MPs didn't cheat their expenses.
If its handwaving to say that a Trump election will cause us in the UK untold extra problems then I'm waving. Blowing up half the Middle East because someone sent him an offensive tweet and he was in a bad mood that day will have plenty of implications for us.
And this waving of hands does precisely what since the number of people on this forum that have a vote in the USA can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
So what? This is a politics site as well as a betting one, if you don't like people discussing politics here then that's odd to say the least.
Despite the fact that we are called traiters, etc, when we discuss possible Brexit scenarios and the political implications thereof.
"The SNP leader told US voters not to vote for Donald Trump ahead of the election despite her party's once cosy relationship with the presidential hopeful."
Given how Obama's intervention in the referendum went down like a bucket of cold sick, I'm surprised she didn't see the wisdom in the STFU school of diplomacy.
Except this isn't really about stopping US voters going trump. Obviously no trump wavering American cares what a regional politician in the UK thinks. She's doing this to play to her own supporters, who will generally hate trump. Makes her look like someone taking a stand against him.
Plus it was a question fired at her (Would you be proud if half Scottish Trump became POTUS?) rather than her wading in.
Yes, there's a nasty fascism creeping in about Brexit and any of those who challenge its proponents' worldview. SeanT called Remainers traitors as a term of common abuse. Several idiots on here actually believe it.
SeanT is SeanT - MalcolmG with richer prose. I got bored about the tenth time he had a go at me and haven't really bewen bothered since.
But it does feel odd that Brexiteers aren't more relaxed, magnaminous, etc. I don't think they are quite sure they are relaly going to get what they want, insofar as they know what they want.
On liberalism, the site is predominently Cameroonish, i.e. socially liberal and mildly conservative. The 25% of the population who really like Corbyn is under-represented (BJO, me, and er...) as are the hard right, though plato seems to be moving to fill the gap. The most interesting posts IMO are from the people like DavidL who one can't quite predict!
"The 25% of the population who really like Corbyn ..."
Where does that figure come from ? The last relevant poll I think I saw, around 40% of Labour voters though he was "doing a good job", which would be quite a bit below 25%. If there's a more relevant poll, I apologise, but that 25% sounds a bit plucked from the air. Of course, I suppose it depends what you mean by "really like".
I asked you a direct question last week when I joined the site that you haven't acknowledged or answered.
You posted that there was no hypocrisy with politicians denying the population the choice between grammar schools and comprehensives while sending their own children to Grammars, and made an analogy with health provision.
I think a better analogy would be to imagine there were hospitals that only treated patients who didn't smoke, didn't drink more than 14 units of alcohol per week, were the correct BMI & didn't take illegal drugs. These hospitals were free at the point of use & considered the equal of private hospitals, but there were very few of them about and they were concentrated in one or two counties.
There was also a very expensive (though cheaper than private healthcare) drug on sale in certain shops, that could hoodwink the test so that even smokers, drinkers, drug takers and the morbidly obese could pass it and have access these hospitals.
Would it be ok with you if politicians used these hospitals for themselves and their children, while refusing to allow similar hospitals to be opened in poorer areas where people living healthier lifestyles than the politicians, and those unable to afford the magic drug (private tuition), were given inferior treatment, had longer waiting lists and more crowded wards?
Hi and (obviously belated) welcome to the site. I didn't see your message, sorry - I'm moving house and a bit infrequently on at the moment.
In reply: no. My view is that it's reasonable for politicians to do the best for their families in the current situation, while doing everything they can to ensure that inequities in the current situation are brought to an end. Your scenario foresees the politicians doing the former but not the latter - indeed "refusing" the latter.
I think that politicians should normally avoid buying their way to better treatment themselves (e.g. I use NHS medical and dental care), so that they experience the normal situation personally, but shouldn't project that onto their possibly apolitical families if they're in a position to help them (I have paid for private treatment a while back for a relative who was faced with a two-year waiting list for treatment for a condition causing severe suffering).
There are always extreme cases, of course. Would I refuse private treatment if it was the only way I could save my life? Not sure.
An attempt at an honest answer, even if fudged at the edge!
Thanks for the answer, sorry if I was abrupt.
I have to say though, it seems to stink a bit to me. If politicians think Grammar schools are such a bad thing, they should be campaigning to have the local one closed down rather than sending their children to it in my opinion. If they are so good, then let all children have the chance to go to one
"The SNP leader told US voters not to vote for Donald Trump ahead of the election despite her party's once cosy relationship with the presidential hopeful."
Given how Obama's intervention in the referendum went down like a bucket of cold sick, I'm surprised she didn't see the wisdom in the STFU school of diplomacy.
Except this isn't really about stopping US voters going trump. Obviously no trump wavering American cares what a regional politician in the UK thinks. She's doing this to play to her own supporters, who will generally hate trump. Makes her look like someone taking a stand against him.
The other difference is that most UK voters knew who Obama was.
"The SNP leader told US voters not to vote for Donald Trump ahead of the election despite her party's once cosy relationship with the presidential hopeful."
Given how Obama's intervention in the referendum went down like a bucket of cold sick, I'm surprised she didn't see the wisdom in the STFU school of diplomacy.
Except this isn't really about stopping US voters going trump. Obviously no trump wavering American cares what a regional politician in the UK thinks. She's doing this to play to her own supporters, who will generally hate trump. Makes her look like someone taking a stand against him.
Getting headlines about 'mind your own business' for a politician who's made a career telling Westminster to do the same does not seem like a 'win' to me.
I asked you a direct question last week when I joined the site that you haven't acknowledged or answered.
You posted that there was no hypocrisy with politicians denying the population the choice between grammar schools and comprehensives while sending their own children to Grammars, and made an analogy with health provision.
I think a better analogy would be to imagine there were hospitals that only treated patients who didn't smoke, didn't drink more than 14 units of alcohol per week, were the correct BMI & didn't take illegal drugs. These hospitals were free at the point of use & considered the equal of private hospitals, but there were very few of them about and they were concentrated in one or two counties.
There was also a very expensive (though cheaper than private healthcare) drug on sale in certain shops, that could hoodwink the test so that even smokers, drinkers, drug takers and the morbidly obese could pass it and have access these hospitals.
Would it be ok with you if politicians used these hospitals for themselves and their children, while refusing to allow similar hospitals to be opened in poorer areas where people living healthier lifestyles than the politicians, and those unable to afford the magic drug (private tuition), were given inferior treatment, had longer waiting lists and more crowded wards?
Hi and (obviously belated) welcome to the site. I didn't see your message, sorry - I'm moving house and a bit infrequently on at the moment.
In reply: no. My view is that it's reasonable for politicians to do the best for their families in the current situation, while doing everything they can to ensure that inequities in the current situation are brought to an end. Your scenario foresees the politicians doing the former but not the latter - indeed "refusing" the latter.
Thanks for the answer, sorry if I was abrupt.
I have to say though, it seems to stink a bit to me. If politicians think Grammar schools are such a bad thing, they should be campaigning to have the local one closed down rather than sending their children to it in my opinion.
OT.
Where are you moving from Nick. Does that mean the Eco-House will be on the market?
"The SNP leader told US voters not to vote for Donald Trump ahead of the election despite her party's once cosy relationship with the presidential hopeful."
Given how Obama's intervention in the referendum went down like a bucket of cold sick, I'm surprised she didn't see the wisdom in the STFU school of diplomacy.
Except this isn't really about stopping US voters going trump. Obviously no trump wavering American cares what a regional politician in the UK thinks. She's doing this to play to her own supporters, who will generally hate trump. Makes her look like someone taking a stand against him.
Getting headlines about 'mind your own business' for a politician who's made a career telling Westminster to do the same does not seem like a 'win' to me.
On liberalism, the site is predominently Cameroonish, i.e. socially liberal and mildly conservative. The 25% of the population who really like Corbyn is under-represented (BJO, me, and er...) as are the hard right, though plato seems to be moving to fill the gap. The most interesting posts IMO are from the people like DavidL who one can't quite predict!
Where do you get the claim that 25% of the population "really like Corbyn"?
25% may be willing to vote Labour despite (not because of) Corbyn.
Add in Green Party voters and some Lib Dems and SNP voters, and 25% seems plausible. Of course, 65%+ don't like him, which is a problem.
On liberalism, the site is predominently Cameroonish, i.e. socially liberal and mildly conservative. The 25% of the population who really like Corbyn is under-represented (BJO, me, and er...) as are the hard right, though plato seems to be moving to fill the gap. The most interesting posts IMO are from the people like DavidL who one can't quite predict!
Where do you get the claim that 25% of the population "really like Corbyn"?
25% may be willing to vote Labour despite (not because of) Corbyn.
Add in Green Party voters and some Lib Dems and SNP voters, and 25% seems plausible. Of course, 65%+ don't like him, which is a problem.
It's not just a question of liking him. He is clearly unfit to be PM. He might be a nice guy. Nick P knows him and says as much. But that's not the issue.
May could do a lot to spike Sturgeon's guns by setting out what would be devolved from Brussels to Holyrood - Fisheries for example - you can hardly complain for decades about Westminster failing to protect Scottish fisheries in Brussels then say 'no thanks' when offered the job yourself....
But Westminster as always will want to hold tight to any power worth having. They will offer crumbs only and only when forced to.
Mr. B2, financial services will be difficult for Scotland, though, because of both the currency question and the issue of mostly domestic banks which will have a 92% or so non-Scottish customer base, who may prefer their money to be held by London-registered banks.
LOL, they will be unscrewingbrass plates at breakneck speed.
And Brexit offers an Edinburgh inside the EU some big opportunities (assuming rUK actually leaves, rather than fall into panic if the union starts to disintegrate).
Not really.
If the UK leaves, and Scotland joins, with all that entails, then in 10 years Edinburgh might be able to compete with Frankfurt for some Euro business.
It would not compete with London, for anything.
Toom Tabard crawls out and gives his positive input
I asked you a direct question last week when I joined the site that you haven't acknowledged or answered.
You posted that there was no hypocrisy with politicians denying the population the choice between grammar schools and comprehensives while sending their own children to Grammars, and made an analogy with health provision.
Would it be ok with you if politicians used these hospitals for themselves and their children, while refusing to allow similar hospitals to be opened in poorer areas where people living healthier lifestyles than the politicians, and those unable to afford the magic drug (private tuition), were given inferior treatment, had longer waiting lists and more crowded wards?
Hi and (obviously belated) welcome to the site. I didn't see your message, sorry - I'm moving house and a bit infrequently on at the moment.
In reply: no. My view is that it's reasonable for politicians to do the best for their families in the current situation, while doing everything they can to ensure that inequities in the current situation are brought to an end. Your scenario foresees the politicians doing the former but not the latter - indeed "refusing" the latter.
I think that politicians should normally avoid buying their way to better treatment themselves (e.g. I use NHS medical and dental care), so that they experience the normal situation personally, but shouldn't project that onto their possibly apolitical families if they're in a position to help them (I have paid for private treatment a while back for a relative who was faced with a two-year waiting list for treatment for a condition causing severe suffering).
There are always extreme cases, of course. Would I refuse private treatment if it was the only way I could save my life? Not sure.
An attempt at an honest answer, even if fudged at the edge!
Thanks for the answer, sorry if I was abrupt.
I have to say though, it seems to stink a bit to me. If politicians think Grammar schools are such a bad thing, they should be campaigning to have the local one closed down rather than sending their children to it in my opinion. If they are so good, then let all children have the chance to go to one
Don't get that last bit. Grammar schools are by definition selective at age 11, the majority of kids in the area would go to a worse school. So when you say let them have a 'chance' to go you mean a say, 1 in 4 or 5 chance based on passing an exam at age 11. It's a quite defensible stance to be against that and still want your kid to go to the best school if they can.
Gee thanks Alastair. The last Indy campaign was the most politically traumatic event of my life by a distance. The prospects of going through all that again just thrills me.
On topic: If one accepts the premise of Alastair's article, I wonder whether the Yes side would be helped more by Brexit being seen to be going badly in economic terms, or by Brexit seeming to go well. In the former case, the Yes side would be able to say they want to refocus towards continental Europe because the UK was doing badly, but the No side would be able to point to Project Fear being Project Reality. Conversely, if Brexit seems to be going well, the leap into the dark might not seem so frightening.
On liberalism, the site is predominently Cameroonish, i.e. socially liberal and mildly conservative. The 25% of the population who really like Corbyn is under-represented (BJO, me, and er...) as are the hard right, though plato seems to be moving to fill the gap. The most interesting posts IMO are from the people like DavidL who one can't quite predict!
Where do you get the claim that 25% of the population "really like Corbyn"?
25% may be willing to vote Labour despite (not because of) Corbyn.
Add in Green Party voters and some Lib Dems and SNP voters, and 25% seems plausible. Of course, 65%+ don't like him, which is a problem.
Even then there's a difference between like and "really like". I'd doubt if even one in ten nationwide "really like" Corbyn.
If James O'Keefe told me water was wet and the sky was blue I'd be asking for corroboration from independent sources before I believed him.
You really are the most partisan ninny - this covert footage has resulted in two very senior DNC figures getting the push - and possibly up for criminal charges.
I'm genuinely amazed at the handwaving on here - 99% don't have a vote and yet acting like our lives depend on it.
If I see another 'there's no voter fraud' claim, I'll - it's like claiming MPs didn't cheat their expenses.
If its handwaving to say that a Trump election will cause us in the UK untold extra problems then I'm waving. Blowing up half the Middle East because someone sent him an offensive tweet and he was in a bad mood that day will have plenty of implications for us.
And this waving of hands does precisely what since the number of people on this forum that have a vote in the USA can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
So what? This is a politics site as well as a betting one, if you don't like people discussing politics here then that's odd to say the least.
Despite the fact that we are called traiters, etc, when we discuss possible Brexit scenarios and the political implications thereof.
If James O'Keefe told me water was wet and the sky was blue I'd be asking for corroboration from independent sources before I believed him.
You really are the most partisan ninny - this covert footage has resulted in two very senior DNC figures getting the push - and possibly up for criminal charges.
I'm genuinely amazed at the handwaving on here - 99% don't have a vote and yet acting like our lives depend on it.
If I see another 'there's no voter fraud' claim, I'll - it's like claiming MPs didn't cheat their expenses.
If its handwaving to say that a Trump election will cause us in the UK untold extra problems then I'm waving. Blowing up half the Middle East because someone sent him an offensive tweet and he was in a bad mood that day will have plenty of implications for us.
And this waving of hands does precisely what since the number of people on this forum that have a vote in the USA can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
So what? This is a politics site as well as a betting one, if you don't like people discussing politics here then that's odd to say the least.
And to endorse that point - I find the sneery attitude of so many to hearing the Trumper line. It's even worse than dismissing Corbyn for Labour leadership.
Living in a bubble that doesn't get that mindset ... on a politics site strikes me as most strange. PB isn't Facebook where perfect life and opinion spouting gets self-esteem Likes.
Gee thanks Alastair. The last Indy campaign was the most politically traumatic event of my life by a distance. The prospects of going through all that again just thrills me.
Remain should have warned you that a Leave victory increased the chance of a second Indyref/an Independent Scotland.
Oh.
I heard the warnings and: a) struggle to believe that Scots would rather be governed from Brussels than Westminster b) in any case consider getting part of the UK out better than none at all.
You struggle because you have not a clue on Scotland
If James O'Keefe told me water was wet and the sky was blue I'd be asking for corroboration from independent sources before I believed him.
You really are the most partisan ninny - this covert footage has resulted in two very senior DNC figures getting the push - and possibly up for criminal charges.
I'm genuinely amazed at the handwaving on here - 99% don't have a vote and yet acting like our lives depend on it.
If I see another 'there's no voter fraud' claim, I'll - it's like claiming MPs didn't cheat their expenses.
If its handwaving to say that a Trump election will cause us in the UK untold extra problems then I'm waving. Blowing up half the Middle East because someone sent him an offensive tweet and he was in a bad mood that day will have plenty of implications for us.
And this waving of hands does precisely what since the number of people on this forum that have a vote in the USA can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
So what? This is a politics site as well as a betting one, if you don't like people discussing politics here then that's odd to say the least.
Despite the fact that we are called traiters, etc, when we discuss possible Brexit scenarios and the political implications thereof.
Not by me you're not.
No absolutely. Not saying you, the point just followed on from yours.
Still begs the question of why Scotland would want to sign up to domination from Brussels.
Can you give us an idea for how long it would take 'domination from Brussels' to force an indy Scotland within the EU to cede control over 2/3 of our taxation, 3/4 of welfare policy, foreign policy, defence, broadcasting, trade & industry, nuclear energy, oil, coal, gas & electricity, the constitution and immigration? Just so we know what to expect, like.
LOL, these guys just donot understand it at all , they are so immersed in England = UK that they just cannot see we are little other than slaves.
Mr. Divvie, it's worth noting that within the UK power has flowed from Westminster to Holyrood, whereas the EU has the opposite tendency of ever greater centralisation.
Flowed? Minimal powers have been dragged incrementally from an unyielding Westminster over decades. How long will it take for Scotland within the UK to reach the level of sovereignty it would have within the EU?
So "another referendum on the same issue" is in the air?
One thing that hasn't changed is that Scotland has no right to belong to the EU and would have to apply for membership. Belonging to the single market but not the EU - probably meaning customs posts on the border with England - would be akin to using sterling without having a say over monetary policy. In short, it's a load of old cock, although if they wrap it in the saltire and denounce their opponents as "talking Scotland down", Sturgeon's party may be able to sell it to a large proportion of their own supporters.
Scotland wouldn't be like Norway with the oil and the big sovereign fund.
The SNP is full of "me me me" pork belly-chasing types who dream of getting as many grants out of the EU as politicians and their business supporters do in Ireland. That's what the EU means for them. They can dream away, but the talk of a second referendum is a waste of public money. Brexit would change so little in Scotland that the SNP's barefaced assertion that the Euref result necessitates tearing up the indyref mandate - which was very clearly to keep the union - is utterly dishonest and self-serving. If the Greens had any backbone they would bring the minority SNP government down. But they haven't and won't.
How can you say that being removed from the EU and the single market against their will does not constitute a major change?
There is an error in your question. Scotland is not a member of the EU, any more than London or Cambridge is. The question of whether it should or shouldn't be assumes it is independent or about to become so. It's a salesman's trick. The will of the Scottish people is that Scotland should not be independent.
At the time of the indyref, David Cameron had already promised a referendum on Brexit. Everyone knew the Euref result could go either way. The possibility of a vote for Brexit was even mentioned in the Scottish government's proposal for independence. So during the indyref campaign the SNP urged Scottish people to think about the implications of a possible Brexit. They're lying when they pretend the Euref result came like a bolt out of the blue.
As for whether the territory of Scotland should be within the single market after Brexit - either if Scotland is still in Britain or if it has left - that is a very minor issue because the amount of trade that Scotland does with EU27 is paltry compared to how much it does with rUK. Putting custom posts on the Tweed and on the A74(M) in order to belong to a single market with EU27 would be a shameful act of cutting Scotland's nose to spite its face.
I'm quite sure the SNP would say that what I just said is "scaremongering", but the fact is that if A is in a single market with B and C is not, then A cannot be in a single market with C.
Hi and (obviously belated) welcome to the site. I didn't see your message, sorry - I'm moving house and a bit infrequently on at the moment.
In reply: no. My view is that it's reasonable for politicians to do the best for their families in the current situation, while doing everything they can to ensure that inequities in the current situation are brought to an end. Your scenario foresees the politicians doing the former but not the latter - indeed "refusing" the latter.
I think that politicians should normally avoid buying their way to better treatment themselves (e.g. I use NHS medical and dental care), so that they experience the normal situation personally, but shouldn't project that onto their possibly apolitical families if they're in a position to help them (I have paid for private treatment a while back for a relative who was faced with a two-year waiting list for treatment for a condition causing severe suffering).
There are always extreme cases, of course. Would I refuse private treatment if it was the only way I could save my life? Not sure.
An attempt at an honest answer, even if fudged at the edge!
Thanks for the answer, sorry if I was abrupt.
I have to say though, it seems to stink a bit to me. If politicians think Grammar schools are such a bad thing, they should be campaigning to have the local one closed down rather than sending their children to it in my opinion. If they are so good, then let all children have the chance to go to one
Isn't the whole point of Grammars that not all children get the chance to go to one? And if the objection is to selection it is just as hypocritical to send a child to the schools with the 'rejects'.
OT I think I worked out the government's brexit strategy.
Currently it's basically Jam, Jam, Afternoon Tea. But Afternoon Tea is jam and scones and the scones would go off when you shipped them, so that's also jam. Why is it all about jam? Because jam is patriotic and English, but also needs people to pick fruit. So they'll keep freedom of movement. But here's the clever part: They'll say they need the immigrants for the jam.
At the time of the indyref, David Cameron had already promised a referendum on Brexit.
Most people (probably including Cameron) thought that he would not win a majority and would not need to follow through with a referendum. Even if held, most people assumed that Remain would win a relatively comfortable victory thanks to the combined support of all the establishment parties.
Brexit was not at all a known quantity at the time of the last independence referendum.
On topic: If one accepts the premise of Alastair's article, I wonder whether the Yes side would be helped more by Brexit being seen to be going badly in economic terms, or by Brexit seeming to go well. In the former case, the Yes side would be able to say they want to refocus towards continental Europe because the UK was doing badly, but the No side would be able to point to Project Fear being Project Reality. Conversely, if Brexit seems to be going well, the leap into the dark might not seem so frightening.
From past experience I expect that either outcome would be viewed as the perfect outcome by those campaigning for independence.
OT I think I worked out the government's brexit strategy.
Currently it's basically Jam, Jam, Afternoon Tea. But Afternoon Tea is jam and scones and the scones would go off when you shipped them, so that's also jam. Why is it all about jam? Because jam is patriotic and English, but also needs people to pick fruit. So they'll keep freedom of movement. But here's the clever part: They'll say they need the immigrants for the jam.
On topic: If one accepts the premise of Alastair's article, I wonder whether the Yes side would be helped more by Brexit being seen to be going badly in economic terms, or by Brexit seeming to go well. In the former case, the Yes side would be able to say they want to refocus towards continental Europe because the UK was doing badly, but the No side would be able to point to Project Fear being Project Reality. Conversely, if Brexit seems to be going well, the leap into the dark might not seem so frightening.
From past experience I expect that either outcome would be viewed as the perfect outcome by those campaigning for independence.
I'm quite sure the SNP would say that what I just said is "scaremongering", but the fact is that if A is in a single market with B and C is not, then A cannot be in a single market with C.
The SNP takes things to loony land. Say there's another indyref and Scotland becomes independent and applies to join the EU, and its application is accepted, and then the Brexit negotiations result in rUK leaving the single market with EU27 (or EU28 with Scotland now a member). Should there then be a third Scottish referendum, so that Scottish people can get the chance to go back into the more important single market? Of course there would also have to be a referendum in rUK, on the issue of recreating the union, because an independent country doesn't have the right to decide for itself on whether to unite with the country next door.
This is the kind of crazy talk we get to when groups in local councils talk foreign policy.
And "local council" isn't being rude. The will of the Scottish people expressed in a very high turnout referendum is that the Scottish parliament should be a regional representative body with devolved legislative powers within Britain.
"But it does feel odd that Brexiteers aren't more relaxed, magnaminous, etc."
Oh, but I am, and most Remainer voters are comfortable with the result now and just want the best deal for the country. I feel genuinely sorry for the bitters, but that's life. Some rain must fall and this is but a light shower for them. The odd cry-baby excepted.
I'm across in Brexit Central (Boston) for a few days next week and I expect to be surrounded by lively, cheery faces. Don't worry about us, Nick, we'll be fine.
The SNP takes things to loony land. Say there's another indyref and Scotland becomes independent and applies to join the EU, and its application is accepted, and then the Brexit negotiations result in rUK leaving the single market with EU27 (or EU28 with Scotland now a member).
The hypothesis breaks down there. If part of the country left in the middle of Brexit negotiations, there's no way on Earth that the rUK would press on with leaving the single market.
OT I think I worked out the government's brexit strategy.
Currently it's basically Jam, Jam, Afternoon Tea. But Afternoon Tea is jam and scones and the scones would go off when you shipped them, so that's also jam. Why is it all about jam? Because jam is patriotic and English, but also needs people to pick fruit. So they'll keep freedom of movement. But here's the clever part: They'll say they need the immigrants for the jam.
I think that strategy might be in a bit of a jam.
It probably started with that meaning when they were brainstorming but creative people know when to roll with it.
The SNP takes things to loony land. Say there's another indyref and Scotland becomes independent and applies to join the EU, and its application is accepted, and then the Brexit negotiations result in rUK leaving the single market with EU27 (or EU28 with Scotland now a member).
The hypothesis breaks down there. If part of the country left in the middle of Brexit negotiations, there's no way on Earth that the rUK would press on with leaving the single market.
Err so you think once we start, we can stop.
It's a process once started will be VERY VERY expensive to rewind.
One example "In the scenario of total and sudden contraction, its main UK creditor, the Bank of England, would sell off the gilts it has bought from Deutsche, putting the proceeds on Deutsche’s BoE Settlement Account, thus enabling it to settle its CHAPS liabilities. Deutsche’s liquidator would likewise sell off the gilts Deutsche was holding as High-Quality Liquid Assets in compliance with global liquidity rules, in order to pay depositors."
Yes, there's a nasty fascism creeping in about Brexit and any of those who challenge its proponents' worldview. SeanT called Remainers traitors as a term of common abuse. Several idiots on here actually believe it.
SeanT is SeanT - MalcolmG with richer prose. I got bored about the tenth time he had a go at me and haven't really bewen bothered since.
But it does feel odd that Brexiteers aren't more relaxed, magnaminous, etc. I don't think they are quite sure they are relaly going to get what they want, insofar as they know what they want.
On liberalism, the site is predominently Cameroonish, i.e. socially liberal and mildly conservative. The 25% of the population who really like Corbyn is under-represented (BJO, me, and er...) as are the hard right, though plato seems to be moving to fill the gap. The most interesting posts IMO are from the people like DavidL who one can't quite predict!
Nick....I really don't like the word Brexiteer...it somehow conjures up something noble, and chivalrous about the cause...when actually it's rather the opposite..
OT I think I worked out the government's brexit strategy.
Currently it's basically Jam, Jam, Afternoon Tea. But Afternoon Tea is jam and scones and the scones would go off when you shipped them, so that's also jam. Why is it all about jam? Because jam is patriotic and English, but also needs people to pick fruit. So they'll keep freedom of movement. But here's the clever part: They'll say they need the immigrants for the jam.
I think that strategy might be in a bit of a jam.
It probably started with that meaning when they were brainstorming but creative people know when to roll with it.
Swiss roll with it, I hope (a non-EU cake-based jam repository)
I asked you a direct question last week when I joined the site that you haven't acknowledged or answered.
Would it be ok with you if politicians used these hospitals for themselves and their children, while refusing to allow similar hospitals to be opened in poorer areas where people living healthier lifestyles than the politicians, and those unable to afford the magic drug (private tuition), were given inferior treatment, had longer waiting lists and more crowded wards?
Hi and (obviously belated) welcome to the site. I didn't see your message, sorry - I'm moving house and a bit infrequently on at the moment.
In reply: no. My view is that it's reasonable for politicians to do the best for their families in the current situation, while doing everything they can to ensure that inequities in the current situation are brought to an end. Your scenario foresees the politicians doing the former but not the latter - indeed "refusing" the latter.
I think that politicians should normally avoid buying their way to better treatment themselves (e.g. I use NHS medical and dental care), so that they experience the normal situation personally, but shouldn't project that onto their possibly apolitical families if they're in a position to help them (I have paid for private treatment a while back for a relative who was faced with a two-year waiting list for treatment for a condition causing severe suffering).
There are always extreme cases, of course. Would I refuse private treatment if it was the only way I could save my life? Not sure.
An attempt at an honest answer, even if fudged at the edge!
I personally think it should be compulsory for politicians (whether right-wing or left-wing) to use NHS medical/dental care and education. They should not be permitted to opt out if they want a career in politics.
Politicians set the budgets for the NHS and education. If they (and their children) are forced to use public services, then a reasonable level of funding is guaranteed for the rest of us.
Once politicians can opt out, then public provision can become sh1tty.
Politicians are then simply a wealthy nomenklatura, who have little contact with the services they fund.
"But it does feel odd that Brexiteers aren't more relaxed, magnaminous, etc."
Oh, but I am, and most Remainer voters are comfortable with the result now and just want the best deal for the country. I feel genuinely sorry for the bitters, but that's life. Some rain must fall and this is but a light shower for them. The odd cry-baby excepted.
I'm across in Brexit Central (Boston) for a few days next week and I expect to be surrounded by lively, cheery faces. Don't worry about us, Nick, we'll be fine.
Most remainers are not comfortable with the vote. Most remainers want the best for the country which certainly is not Brexit in any way shape or form.
Brexit is like watching one of those Execution movies when a terrible miscarriage has occurred and one is left chewing one's nails hoping for justice to prevail...
One example "In the scenario of total and sudden contraction, its main UK creditor, the Bank of England, would sell off the gilts it has bought from Deutsche, putting the proceeds on Deutsche’s BoE Settlement Account, thus enabling it to settle its CHAPS liabilities. Deutsche’s liquidator would likewise sell off the gilts Deutsche was holding as High-Quality Liquid Assets in compliance with global liquidity rules, in order to pay depositors."
It's tosh, in that - if DB goes bust - then the German government would pick up the bill, just as the UK government did for RBS, Northern Rock, etc. Shareholders in Deutsche would lose everything, of course, but it would be effectively nationalised, as has happened to every major failing retail and commercial bank in the Western World in the last 75 years.
The SNP takes things to loony land. Say there's another indyref and Scotland becomes independent and applies to join the EU, and its application is accepted, and then the Brexit negotiations result in rUK leaving the single market with EU27 (or EU28 with Scotland now a member).
The hypothesis breaks down there. If part of the country left in the middle of Brexit negotiations, there's no way on Earth that the rUK would press on with leaving the single market.
Err so you think once we start, we can stop.
It's a process once started will be VERY VERY expensive to rewind.
eg UK contribution doubles etc..
It's a process that can be fudged in countless ways if there is will on both sides. It's worth reading Donald Tusk's speech on this.
For all Fox's professed bias, that is a realistic prediction. I'd give most of the toss-up to Trump, maybe not NC.
Arizona and Ohio are looking very tight. Presently I edge them both into Clinton's column. There are also some encouraging numbers coming from Georgia for her too.
The SNP takes things to loony land. Say there's another indyref and Scotland becomes independent and applies to join the EU, and its application is accepted, and then the Brexit negotiations result in rUK leaving the single market with EU27 (or EU28 with Scotland now a member).
The hypothesis breaks down there. If part of the country left in the middle of Brexit negotiations, there's no way on Earth that the rUK would press on with leaving the single market.
That's putting the cart before the horse. The UK is leaving the EU come what may in 2019.
Even if the SNP gets an Independence Referendum there is simply not enough time to organise a referendum, provide the appropriate time for campaigning, hold the referendum then have negotiations for separation and exit before the Article 50 clock runs out and we leave the EU.
You're acting as if a SindyRef Yes vote means Scotland is independent tomorrow, it isn't. Scotland needs independence negotiations with the UK just as much as the UK needs negotiations with the EU. Sindy can't and won't be complete before Brexit negotiations end.
You're acting as if a SindyRef Yes vote means Scotland is independent tomorrow, it isn't. Scotland needs independence negotiations with the UK just as much as the UK needs negotiations with the EU. Sindy can't and won't be complete before Brexit negotiations end.
They could adopt the SeanT approach to negotiations.
"Fck it, we're off. No deal. See ya!"
It would be catastrophic, but that is apparently not a consideration
For all Fox's professed bias, that is a realistic prediction. I'd give most of the toss-up to Trump, maybe not NC.
Arizona and Ohio are looking very tight. Presently I edge them both into Clinton's column. There are also some encouraging numbers coming from Georgia for her too.
There are some very bad numbers in heavily dem counties in Ohio, I would say leaning Trump as well as Iowa.
Well you could argue that about a lot of the discussion on here. I can't vote in Witney, and nor can almost any other PBer I suspect. It's all potential background to the betting
No. Facts are background to betting, (informed) speculation has is place, I can even understand ramping and blatant propaganda on plebiscite on which most members get to vote. But seriously what is the point on ramping and misinformation, not to mention blatant lying on an election on which almost no one here gets to vote ?
If the purpose is to inform better, why are people in such a hurry to handwave away views that don't conform with their own sensibilities, rather that consider the evidence on its merits. Everyone is guilty of this to some extent, but I have to say the more liberal leaning members are raising it to an art form, just because someone is nasty, or racist or misogynistic doesnt mean they dont have support from the electorate no matter how much it might disgust or disappoint, saying that someone can't have much support because they have illiberal views is the triumph of hope over experience.
From BBC page 'The Retail Prices Index (RPI) measure of inflation, which includes mortgage interest payments, rose to 2.0% in September from 1.8% in August.'
The SNP takes things to loony land. Say there's another indyref and Scotland becomes independent and applies to join the EU, and its application is accepted, and then the Brexit negotiations result in rUK leaving the single market with EU27 (or EU28 with Scotland now a member).
The hypothesis breaks down there. If part of the country left in the middle of Brexit negotiations, there's no way on Earth that the rUK would press on with leaving the single market.
That's putting the cart before the horse. The UK is leaving the EU come what may in 2019.
Even if the SNP gets an Independence Referendum there is simply not enough time to organise a referendum, provide the appropriate time for campaigning, hold the referendum then have negotiations for separation and exit before the Article 50 clock runs out and we leave the EU.
You're acting as if a SindyRef Yes vote means Scotland is independent tomorrow, it isn't. Scotland needs independence negotiations with the UK just as much as the UK needs negotiations with the EU. Sindy can't and won't be complete before Brexit negotiations end.
Sindy would throw an almighty spanner in the works that would provide the necessary cover for fudging the Article 50 process or extending it indefinitely. If nothing else, why would the EU continue to offer the same terms to the UK knowing that it is about to be dismembered?
From BBC page 'The Retail Prices Index (RPI) measure of inflation, which includes mortgage interest payments, rose to 2.0% in September from 1.8% in August.'
Headline:
UK inflation at 1% as price of clothes and fuel rises
From BBC page 'The Retail Prices Index (RPI) measure of inflation, which includes mortgage interest payments, rose to 2.0% in September from 1.8% in August.'
Headline:
UK inflation at 1% as price of clothes and fuel rises
Well you could argue that about a lot of the discussion on here. I can't vote in Witney, and nor can almost any other PBer I suspect. It's all potential background to the betting
No. Facts are background to betting, (informed) speculation has is place, I can even understand ramping and blatant propaganda on plebiscite on which most members get to vote. But seriously what is the point on ramping and misinformation, not to mention blatant lying on an election on which almost no one here gets to vote ?
If the purpose is to inform better, why are people in such a hurry to handwave away views that don't conform with their own sensibilities, rather that consider the evidence on its merits. Everyone is guilty of this to some extent, but I have to say the more liberal leaning members are raising it to an art form, just because someone is nasty, or racist or misogynistic doesnt mean they dont have support from the electorate no matter how much it might disgust or disappoint, saying that someone can't have much support because they have illiberal views is the triumph of hope over experience.
To many liberals, anyone who has illiberal, mysogenistic or racist views, however mildly on the scale is a pariah worse than a pederast and they cannot comprehend that many if not most people consider it as one character flaw to be judged in the matrix of their positives and negatives in which the positives may carry greater weight.
On the other hand someone who abandons their spouse and children because they fancy another man or woman is exercising their right to follow their own conscience and cannot be criticised as that would be "Judgemental" in the eyes of liberals.
OT I think I worked out the government's brexit strategy.
Currently it's basically Jam, Jam, Afternoon Tea. But Afternoon Tea is jam and scones and the scones would go off when you shipped them, so that's also jam. Why is it all about jam? Because jam is patriotic and English, but also needs people to pick fruit. So they'll keep freedom of movement. But here's the clever part: They'll say they need the immigrants for the jam.
*scratches head*
I assume the after work drinks were more agreeable than usual today
One example "In the scenario of total and sudden contraction, its main UK creditor, the Bank of England, would sell off the gilts it has bought from Deutsche, putting the proceeds on Deutsche’s BoE Settlement Account, thus enabling it to settle its CHAPS liabilities. Deutsche’s liquidator would likewise sell off the gilts Deutsche was holding as High-Quality Liquid Assets in compliance with global liquidity rules, in order to pay depositors."
It's tosh, in that - if DB goes bust - then the German government would pick up the bill, just as the UK government did for RBS, Northern Rock, etc. Shareholders in Deutsche would lose everything, of course, but it would be effectively nationalised, as has happened to every major failing retail and commercial bank in the Western World in the last 75 years.
OT I think I worked out the government's brexit strategy.
Currently it's basically Jam, Jam, Afternoon Tea. But Afternoon Tea is jam and scones and the scones would go off when you shipped them, so that's also jam. Why is it all about jam? Because jam is patriotic and English, but also needs people to pick fruit. So they'll keep freedom of movement. But here's the clever part: They'll say they need the immigrants for the jam.
*scratches head*
I assume the after work drinks were more agreeable than usual today
The SNP takes things to loony land. Say there's another indyref and Scotland becomes independent and applies to join the EU, and its application is accepted, and then the Brexit negotiations result in rUK leaving the single market with EU27 (or EU28 with Scotland now a member).
The hypothesis breaks down there. If part of the country left in the middle of Brexit negotiations, there's no way on Earth that the rUK would press on with leaving the single market.
That's putting the cart before the horse. The UK is leaving the EU come what may in 2019.
Even if the SNP gets an Independence Referendum there is simply not enough time to organise a referendum, provide the appropriate time for campaigning, hold the referendum then have negotiations for separation and exit before the Article 50 clock runs out and we leave the EU.
You're acting as if a SindyRef Yes vote means Scotland is independent tomorrow, it isn't. Scotland needs independence negotiations with the UK just as much as the UK needs negotiations with the EU. Sindy can't and won't be complete before Brexit negotiations end.
Sindy would throw an almighty spanner in the works that would provide the necessary cover for fudging the Article 50 process or extending it indefinitely. If nothing else, why would the EU continue to offer the same terms to the UK knowing that it is about to be dismembered?
Not really, to extend the Article 50 process requires unanimity from all 28 EU Member States and a number of them are all too happy to see us leave (especially after the vote) and/or not happy to encourage member states to dismember easily (eg Spain). The idea that the process will be halted has about as much chance as standing in front of an oncoming freight train and putting your hand out to say stop.
From BBC page 'The Retail Prices Index (RPI) measure of inflation, which includes mortgage interest payments, rose to 2.0% in September from 1.8% in August.'
Headline:
UK inflation at 1% as price of clothes and fuel rises
Comments
25% may be willing to vote Labour despite (not because of) Corbyn.
In reply: no. My view is that it's reasonable for politicians to do the best for their families in the current situation, while doing everything they can to ensure that inequities in the current situation are brought to an end. Your scenario foresees the politicians doing the former but not the latter - indeed "refusing" the latter.
I think that politicians should normally avoid buying their way to better treatment themselves (e.g. I use NHS medical and dental care), so that they experience the normal situation personally, but shouldn't project that onto their possibly apolitical families if they're in a position to help them (I have paid for private treatment a while back for a relative who was faced with a two-year waiting list for treatment for a condition causing severe suffering).
There are always extreme cases, of course. Would I refuse private treatment if it was the only way I could save my life? Not sure.
An attempt at an honest answer, even if fudged at the edge!
Where does that figure come from ?
The last relevant poll I think I saw, around 40% of Labour voters though he was "doing a good job", which would be quite a bit below 25%. If there's a more relevant poll, I apologise, but that 25% sounds a bit plucked from the air.
Of course, I suppose it depends what you mean by "really like".
I have to say though, it seems to stink a bit to me. If politicians think Grammar schools are such a bad thing, they should be campaigning to have the local one closed down rather than sending their children to it in my opinion. If they are so good, then let all children have the chance to go to one
Where are you moving from Nick. Does that mean the Eco-House will be on the market?
Which is of course a wee shame.
Grammar schools are by definition selective at age 11, the majority of kids in the area would go to a worse school. So when you say let them have a 'chance' to go you mean a say, 1 in 4 or 5 chance based on passing an exam at age 11.
It's a quite defensible stance to be against that and still want your kid to go to the best school if they can.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/18/dem-campaign-bus-dumps-waste/92391306/
Living in a bubble that doesn't get that mindset ... on a politics site strikes me as most strange. PB isn't Facebook where perfect life and opinion spouting gets self-esteem Likes.
At the time of the indyref, David Cameron had already promised a referendum on Brexit. Everyone knew the Euref result could go either way. The possibility of a vote for Brexit was even mentioned in the Scottish government's proposal for independence. So during the indyref campaign the SNP urged Scottish people to think about the implications of a possible Brexit. They're lying when they pretend the Euref result came like a bolt out of the blue.
As for whether the territory of Scotland should be within the single market after Brexit - either if Scotland is still in Britain or if it has left - that is a very minor issue because the amount of trade that Scotland does with EU27 is paltry compared to how much it does with rUK. Putting custom posts on the Tweed and on the A74(M) in order to belong to a single market with EU27 would be a shameful act of cutting Scotland's nose to spite its face.
I'm quite sure the SNP would say that what I just said is "scaremongering", but the fact is that if A is in a single market with B and C is not, then A cannot be in a single market with C.
Currently it's basically Jam, Jam, Afternoon Tea. But Afternoon Tea is jam and scones and the scones would go off when you shipped them, so that's also jam. Why is it all about jam? Because jam is patriotic and English, but also needs people to pick fruit. So they'll keep freedom of movement. But here's the clever part: They'll say they need the immigrants for the jam.
Brexit was not at all a known quantity at the time of the last independence referendum.
This is the kind of crazy talk we get to when groups in local councils talk foreign policy.
And "local council" isn't being rude. The will of the Scottish people expressed in a very high turnout referendum is that the Scottish parliament should be a regional representative body with devolved legislative powers within Britain.
Clinton 50 .. Trump 41
https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rSBkM2tk5hcI/v0
"But it does feel odd that Brexiteers aren't more relaxed, magnaminous, etc."
Oh, but I am, and most Remainer voters are comfortable with the result now and just want the best deal for the country. I feel genuinely sorry for the bitters, but that's life. Some rain must fall and this is but a light shower for them. The odd cry-baby excepted.
I'm across in Brexit Central (Boston) for a few days next week and I expect to be surrounded by lively, cheery faces. Don't worry about us, Nick, we'll be fine.
15-15 so far.
It's a process once started will be VERY VERY expensive to rewind.
eg UK contribution doubles etc..
http://brexitcentral.com/brain-monteith-deutsche-banks-liabilities-show-need-quick-clean-brexit/
One example
"In the scenario of total and sudden contraction, its main UK creditor, the Bank of England, would sell off the gilts it has bought from Deutsche, putting the proceeds on Deutsche’s BoE Settlement Account, thus enabling it to settle its CHAPS liabilities. Deutsche’s liquidator would likewise sell off the gilts Deutsche was holding as High-Quality Liquid Assets in compliance with global liquidity rules, in order to pay depositors."
Politicians set the budgets for the NHS and education. If they (and their children) are forced to use public services, then a reasonable level of funding is guaranteed for the rest of us.
Once politicians can opt out, then public provision can become sh1tty.
Politicians are then simply a wealthy nomenklatura, who have little contact with the services they fund.
Plus more interestingly no one seems to laugh at, and the PM seems to take seriously the emails from Colin, etc
Most remainers are not comfortable with the vote. Most remainers want the best for the country which certainly is not Brexit in any way shape or form.
Brexit is like watching one of those Execution movies when a terrible miscarriage has occurred and one is left chewing one's nails hoping for justice to prevail...
Score draw.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/d7g7/mm23
Even if the SNP gets an Independence Referendum there is simply not enough time to organise a referendum, provide the appropriate time for campaigning, hold the referendum then have negotiations for separation and exit before the Article 50 clock runs out and we leave the EU.
You're acting as if a SindyRef Yes vote means Scotland is independent tomorrow, it isn't. Scotland needs independence negotiations with the UK just as much as the UK needs negotiations with the EU. Sindy can't and won't be complete before Brexit negotiations end.
"Fck it, we're off. No deal. See ya!"
It would be catastrophic, but that is apparently not a consideration
If the purpose is to inform better, why are people in such a hurry to handwave away views that don't conform with their own sensibilities, rather that consider the evidence on its merits. Everyone is guilty of this to some extent, but I have to say the more liberal leaning members are raising it to an art form, just because someone is nasty, or racist or misogynistic doesnt mean they dont have support from the electorate no matter how much it might disgust or disappoint, saying that someone can't have much support because they have illiberal views is the triumph of hope over experience.
Of course I was referring to most of the Remain voters I know in the UK. I can't vouch for the Italian Remain voters.
UK inflation at 1% as price of clothes and fuel rises
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37688593
On the other hand someone who abandons their spouse and children because they fancy another man or woman is exercising their right to follow their own conscience and cannot be criticised as that would be "Judgemental" in the eyes of liberals.
#rankhypocracy
I assume the after work drinks were more agreeable than usual today
Via .. Arizona Republic