As opposed to your case that there would have to be a frontier being based on anything other than the fact you've just realised that an independent Scotland would have an independent immigration policy.
My position also has the backing of the Scottish Government and others. They know different countries pursue different immigration policies but they still deny there will be a need for a frontier.
The issue of those dangerous Romanians has been a political hot potato in the UK this year. Yet Ireland ended restrictions on Romanians and Bulgarians early without anyone suggesting that a frontier between Ireland and the UK would be required.
As opposed to your case that there would have to be a frontier being based on anything other than the fact you've just realised that an independent Scotland would have an independent immigration policy.
My position also has the backing of the Scottish Government and others. They know different countries pursue different immigration policies but they still deny there will be a need for a frontier.
The issue of those dangerous Romanians has been a political hot potato in the UK this year. Yet Ireland ended restrictions on Romanians and Bulgarians early without anyone suggesting that a frontier between Ireland and the UK would be required.
If a rUK government wished there to be a border.. there would be one.
Isn't the conversation on here indicative of the deep cracks in the Unionist campaign (not something that PB has cared to examine much until fairly recently)? Not only do the Unionist parties when wearing their Westminster hats tell everyone that'll listen that governance by the opposition has been/is/would be the most destructive, disastrous outcome possible, the main UK ruling party (the Cons for the avoidance of doubt) is electorally conflicted about the outcome of the referendum. Regardless of the dire quality of most of the current Unionist spokesmen, I think even a Churchill would find it difficult to square these circles, and trying to be objective I get very little sense that even the competent Unionist politicians really believe in much of what they're saying. Whatever you think of the Yes campaign (and it's not solely the SNP whatever folk on here like to say), it has unity of purpose.
Equally I think you'll find most Unionists find it hard to believe that even the competent Nationalist politicians believe what they're saying. Particularly on the issue of Sterling, which is proving to be the Nationalist's Achilles heel .
You're confusing primary purpose with possible consequences. Yes isn't campaigning fundamentally to get in a currency union, just as BT doesn't really think the pound is the be all and end all of being in the UK (though one might be forgiven for thinking so after the amount of hot air expelled on the subject). I'm talking about believing heart and intellect that Scotland is better governing itself than being governed by Westminster.
Unionists are certainly desperately eager to make currency into an Achilles heel, but the last proper Indy poll had 13% of the respondees saying that they needed more info on currency, I think about fifth down the list of their concerns. Kippery agonising about the EU, the pound, immigration and the greatness of Britain just don't have the same salience in Scotland.
"Kippery agonising about the EU, the pound, immigration and the greatness of Britain just don't have the same salience in Scotland."
I never said that though did I. It does seem odd that the No side is ahead at all given how hopeless you seem to believe they are, out of interest where do you think the yes side are going wrong given the current gap in the polls . And 13% of people want more information, how about those Unionists who have seen more than enough information to work out that the Nationalist position just isn't credible.
A completely open English-Scottish border would be a very different thing: anyone who got into Scotland via their "more liberal" immigration policy could then catch a bus to Manchester or Birmingham no problem.
This begs the question of whether you realise that it's possible to catch a bus from Belfast to Manchester or indeed travel from anywhere in the Republic of Ireland to anywhere in the UK without crossing a frontier.
My position also has the backing of the Scottish Government
Not your strongest card.....
The CTA nearly came a cropper a couple of years back when Passport Checks were proposed - but it is to be hoped the Coalition will not be as authoritarian as Labour:
If Border controls are erected between England and Scortland then it is conceivable that they will also be introduced for Ireland, North and South..There is no logical argument against it.
The sequence of events if there is a yes vote would, I think, be something like
1 A sense of profound shock and surprise in all quarters, particularly in Scotland 2 Growing calls for the Westminster government to resign immediately, calls which would eventually prove irresistible 3 A UK-wide general election fought on current boundaries including Scotland 4 The return of a Labour or Lib-Lab government 5 Negotiations between the new UK government and Scotland which would lead to a proposal involving a much greater degree of self-government for Scotland but something short of full independence 6 A second referendum on this new proposal
The current referendum will certainly not be the last word on the issue whatever the result.
The sequence of events if there is a yes vote would, I think, be something like
1 A sense of profound shock and surprise in all quarters, particularly in Scotland 2 Growing calls for the Westminster government to resign immediately, calls which would eventually prove irresistible 3 A UK-wide general election fought on current boundaries including Scotland 4 The return of a Labour or Lib-Lab government 5 Negotiations between the new UK government and Scotland which would lead to a proposal involving a much greater degree of self-government for Scotland but something short of full independence 6 A second referendum on this new proposal
The current referendum will certainly not be the last word on the issue whatever the result.
On what basis would the government have to resign? Seeing as there would be a general election anyway within about 9 months of next sept..
As with so much of this White Paper, it's all a mixture of supposition, and wishful thinking, and a blind determination to ignore even the possibility that England might remotely object to anything Scotland wants.
There wont be a frontier because it will suit Scotland not to have one. There wont be a frontier because it will suit both sides not to have one. It's a solution in search of a problem that only exists in your head..
The sequence of events if there is a yes vote would, I think, be something like
1 A sense of profound shock and surprise in all quarters, particularly in Scotland 2 Growing calls for the Westminster government to resign immediately, calls which would eventually prove irresistible 3 A UK-wide general election fought on current boundaries including Scotland 4 The return of a Labour or Lib-Lab government 5 Negotiations between the new UK government and Scotland which would lead to a proposal involving a much greater degree of self-government for Scotland but something short of full independence 6 A second referendum on this new proposal
The current referendum will certainly not be the last word on the issue whatever the result.
2 - Why would the government resign? They offered a referendum and would abide by it, and there would be a GE in May 2015 anyway.
5 - No. Scotland would have just voted for independence, and that is what they will get.
Given the surliness of the immigration debate, if Scotland indeed became independent how long would it be before the English tabloids started stigmatising Scottish immigrants and calling for their numbers to be capped?
As with so much of this White Paper, it's all a mixture of supposition, and wishful thinking, and a blind determination to ignore even the possibility that England might remotely object to anything Scotland wants.
There wont be a frontier because it will suit Scotland not to have one. There wont be a frontier because it will suit both sides not to have one. It's a solution in search of a problem that only exists in your head..
If either side wanted a frontier, there would be one. They can be constructed unilaterally.
The sequence of events if there is a yes vote would, I think, be something like
1 A sense of profound shock and surprise in all quarters, particularly in Scotland 2 Growing calls for the Westminster government to resign immediately, calls which would eventually prove irresistible 3 A UK-wide general election fought on current boundaries including Scotland 4 The return of a Labour or Lib-Lab government 5 Negotiations between the new UK government and Scotland which would lead to a proposal involving a much greater degree of self-government for Scotland but something short of full independence 6 A second referendum on this new proposal
The current referendum will certainly not be the last word on the issue whatever the result.
On what basis would the government have to resign? Seeing as there would be a general election anyway within about 9 months of next sept..
Surely the first duty of a government is to preserve the country over which it is governing? Cameron will be bracketed with Lord North - the man who presided over a national disaster.
The sequence of events if there is a yes vote would, I think, be something like
1 A sense of profound shock and surprise in all quarters, particularly in Scotland 2 Growing calls for the Westminster government to resign immediately, calls which would eventually prove irresistible 3 A UK-wide general election fought on current boundaries including Scotland 4 The return of a Labour or Lib-Lab government 5 Negotiations between the new UK government and Scotland which would lead to a proposal involving a much greater degree of self-government for Scotland but something short of full independence 6 A second referendum on this new proposal
The current referendum will certainly not be the last word on the issue whatever the result.
1. Jubilation in Scotland, indifference in England 'Here's your hat, where's your hurry?' 2. Huge Labour blame game as 'it wiz them that lost it' 3. Cross Party Groups set up to negotiate separation 4. 2015 GE Tories 'Get the best deal for England', Labour 'Um, err...' 5. Hung parliament but coalition continues - eager to complete deal to focus on English issues for 2020. 6. Scotland Independent, SNP win landslide (the last time in their history), Labour leader, Tristram Hunt, posher than Tory or Lib Dem Leader.
The idea that there would be a 'second referendum' is the best yet!
The only 'second referendum' will be in 20 years on the same question, if 'yes' is not the answer this time.....If it is, that's it.
As with so much of this White Paper, it's all a mixture of supposition, and wishful thinking, and a blind determination to ignore even the possibility that England might remotely object to anything Scotland wants.
There wont be a frontier because it will suit Scotland not to have one. There wont be a frontier because it will suit both sides not to have one. It's a solution in search of a problem that only exists in your head..
But if (if) rUK's and Scotland's immigration policies diverge significantly then ISTM it'll thoroughly suit rUK to have a policed border. Scotland couldn't stop that (could it...?), although the checks could be one-way if Scotland didn't mind who entered its territory from the rUK side of the border.
That's a steaming load of shite. There's no reason whatever the coalition would resign. Or that having voted for independence they'd then get devomax. You've had a brainfart.
As with so much of this White Paper, it's all a mixture of supposition, and wishful thinking, and a blind determination to ignore even the possibility that England might remotely object to anything Scotland wants.
There wont be a frontier because it will suit Scotland not to have one. There wont be a frontier because it will suit both sides not to have one. It's a solution in search of a problem that only exists in your head..
If either side wanted a frontier, there would be one. They can be constructed unilaterally.
That brings us to another solution to the problem of hostile anti-immigration voters who think there should be a border. The government can bamboozle them with confusing double-negatives.
The sequence of events if there is a yes vote would, I think, be something like
1 A sense of profound shock and surprise in all quarters, particularly in Scotland 2 Growing calls for the Westminster government to resign immediately, calls which would eventually prove irresistible 3 A UK-wide general election fought on current boundaries including Scotland 4 The return of a Labour or Lib-Lab government 5 Negotiations between the new UK government and Scotland which would lead to a proposal involving a much greater degree of self-government for Scotland but something short of full independence 6 A second referendum on this new proposal
The current referendum will certainly not be the last word on the issue whatever the result.
On what basis would the government have to resign? Seeing as there would be a general election anyway within about 9 months of next sept..
Surely the first duty of a government is to preserve the country over which it is governing? Cameron will be bracketed with Lord North - the man who presided over a national disaster.
Not against the democratically expressed wishes of its people.
If 50% +1 in Scotland vote for independence, thats it.
Only history will determine whether it was a 'disaster' - and on which side(s) of the border.
The sequence of events if there is a yes vote would, I think, be something like
1 A sense of profound shock and surprise in all quarters, particularly in Scotland 2 Growing calls for the Westminster government to resign immediately, calls which would eventually prove irresistible 3 A UK-wide general election fought on current boundaries including Scotland 4 The return of a Labour or Lib-Lab government 5 Negotiations between the new UK government and Scotland which would lead to a proposal involving a much greater degree of self-government for Scotland but something short of full independence 6 A second referendum on this new proposal
The current referendum will certainly not be the last word on the issue whatever the result.
On what basis would the government have to resign? Seeing as there would be a general election anyway within about 9 months of next sept..
Surely the first duty of a government is to preserve the country over which it is governing? Cameron will be bracketed with Lord North - the man who presided over a national disaster.
Should Blair have resigned when he proposed devolution then, seeing as it lead onto this path in the first place.
What should Cameron have done... banned a referendum? Don't be silly.
The sequence of events if there is a yes vote would, I think, be something like
1 A sense of profound shock and surprise in all quarters, particularly in Scotland 2 Growing calls for the Westminster government to resign immediately, calls which would eventually prove irresistible 3 A UK-wide general election fought on current boundaries including Scotland 4 The return of a Labour or Lib-Lab government 5 Negotiations between the new UK government and Scotland which would lead to a proposal involving a much greater degree of self-government for Scotland but something short of full independence 6 A second referendum on this new proposal
The current referendum will certainly not be the last word on the issue whatever the result.
1. Jubilation in Scotland, indifference in England 'Here's your hat, where's your hurry?' 2. Huge Labour blame game as 'it wiz them that lost it' 3. Cross Party Groups set up to negotiate separation 4. 2015 GE Tories 'Get the best deal for England', Labour 'Um, err...' 5. Hung parliament but coalition continues - eager to complete deal to focus on English issues for 2020. 6. Scotland Independent, SNP win landslide (the last time in their history), Labour leader, Tristram Hunt, posher than Tory or Lib Dem Leader.
The idea that there would be a 'second referendum' is the best yet!
The only 'second referendum' will be in 20 years on the same question, if 'yes' is not the answer this time.....If it is, that's it.
Why should one referendum resolve the issue? After all, the one referendum we have had on Europe does not seem to have put that issue to bed - the losers have been demanding a rerun ever since.
But if (if) rUK's and Scotland's immigration policies diverge significantly then ISTM it'll thoroughly suit rUK to have a policed border.
Why would it suit the rUK to have a policed border? Do you imagine that foreigners will pretend to become students in Scotland in order to subsequently slip across the unmanned border and work illegally in England rather than, say, take a holiday in England and overstay?
That's a steaming load of shite. There's no reason whatever the coalition would resign. Or that having voted for independence they'd then get devomax. You've had a brainfart.
I would say if theres a no, theres a good chance they'll get devomax, which is potentially what Salmond is going for.
Then there'll have to be a English response as to how Westminster operates.
The sequence of events if there is a yes vote would, I think, be something like
1 A sense of profound shock and surprise in all quarters, particularly in Scotland 2 Growing calls for the Westminster government to resign immediately, calls which would eventually prove irresistible 3 A UK-wide general election fought on current boundaries including Scotland 4 The return of a Labour or Lib-Lab government 5 Negotiations between the new UK government and Scotland which would lead to a proposal involving a much greater degree of self-government for Scotland but something short of full independence 6 A second referendum on this new proposal
The current referendum will certainly not be the last word on the issue whatever the result.
On what basis would the government have to resign? Seeing as there would be a general election anyway within about 9 months of next sept..
Surely the first duty of a government is to preserve the country over which it is governing? Cameron will be bracketed with Lord North - the man who presided over a national disaster.
The sequence of events if there is a yes vote would, I think, be something like
1 A sense of profound shock and surprise in all quarters, particularly in Scotland 2 Growing calls for the Westminster government to resign immediately, calls which would eventually prove irresistible 3 A UK-wide general election fought on current boundaries including Scotland 4 The return of a Labour or Lib-Lab government 5 Negotiations between the new UK government and Scotland which would lead to a proposal involving a much greater degree of self-government for Scotland but something short of full independence 6 A second referendum on this new proposal
The current referendum will certainly not be the last word on the issue whatever the result.
1. Jubilation in Scotland, indifference in England 'Here's your hat, where's your hurry?' 2. Huge Labour blame game as 'it wiz them that lost it' 3. Cross Party Groups set up to negotiate separation 4. 2015 GE Tories 'Get the best deal for England', Labour 'Um, err...' 5. Hung parliament but coalition continues - eager to complete deal to focus on English issues for 2020. 6. Scotland Independent, SNP win landslide (the last time in their history), Labour leader, Tristram Hunt, posher than Tory or Lib Dem Leader.
The idea that there would be a 'second referendum' is the best yet!
The only 'second referendum' will be in 20 years on the same question, if 'yes' is not the answer this time.....If it is, that's it.
Why should one referendum resolve the issue? After all, the one referendum we have had on Europe does not seem to have put that issue to bed - the losers have been demanding a rerun ever since.
Why not?
If the Nats win, Scotland becomes independent. End of. 'We've changed the government in Westminster, could you do it again please?' will never wash. They'd say 'No'. And they'd be right to.....
It seems to me that the party that's really put paid to the union is labour.
Scotland had 13 years of having their 'team' in control in Westminster, and they clearly aren't content with the deal they got.
Conclusion: No pan UK party will ever give the Scots what they want.
Yep: a partly-Scottish PM and then an unambiguously Scottish PM, Scottish Chancellors for the whole period, Scottish defence ministers for much of the time, Scottish Foreign Sec for some of the time, other Scottish cabinet ministers in key positions throughout the 13 years, devolved powers for education, health, and law and order: and still they manage to bitch about Scotland not having enough influence!
You misunderstand Richard. We don't want to influence the government of our next door neighbour. We want to govern ourselves.
To be fair to anothernick the UK does have form for shabbily ignoring the wishes of the Scots in a referendum as that turnout threshold in the 70s proves.
The sequence of events if there is a yes vote would, I think, be something like
1 A sense of profound shock and surprise in all quarters, particularly in Scotland 2 Growing calls for the Westminster government to resign immediately, calls which would eventually prove irresistible 3 A UK-wide general election fought on current boundaries including Scotland 4 The return of a Labour or Lib-Lab government 5 Negotiations between the new UK government and Scotland which would lead to a proposal involving a much greater degree of self-government for Scotland but something short of full independence 6 A second referendum on this new proposal
The current referendum will certainly not be the last word on the issue whatever the result.
On what basis would the government have to resign? Seeing as there would be a general election anyway within about 9 months of next sept..
Surely the first duty of a government is to preserve the country over which it is governing? Cameron will be bracketed with Lord North - the man who presided over a national disaster.
But if (if) rUK's and Scotland's immigration policies diverge significantly then ISTM it'll thoroughly suit rUK to have a policed border.
Why would it suit the rUK to have a policed border? Do you imagine that foreigners will pretend to become students in Scotland in order to subsequently slip across the unmanned border and work illegally in England rather than, say, take a holiday in England and overstay?
What SeanT said. I'm not imagining any specific circumstances, merely that the usual way of the world is for nations to keep track of who is entering their country, and all the more so if you're talking about a land border with another nation that has a significantly more relaxed immigration policy. I don't understand your objection, sorry.
The sequence of events if there is a yes vote would, I think, be something like
1 A sense of profound shock and surprise in all quarters, particularly in Scotland 2 Growing calls for the Westminster government to resign immediately, calls which would eventually prove irresistible 3 A UK-wide general election fought on current boundaries including Scotland 4 The return of a Labour or Lib-Lab government 5 Negotiations between the new UK government and Scotland which would lead to a proposal involving a much greater degree of self-government for Scotland but something short of full independence 6 A second referendum on this new proposal
The current referendum will certainly not be the last word on the issue whatever the result.
1. Jubilation in Scotland, indifference in England 'Here's your hat, where's your hurry?' 2. Huge Labour blame game as 'it wiz them that lost it' 3. Cross Party Groups set up to negotiate separation 4. 2015 GE Tories 'Get the best deal for England', Labour 'Um, err...' 5. Hung parliament but coalition continues - eager to complete deal to focus on English issues for 2020. 6. Scotland Independent, SNP win landslide (the last time in their history), Labour leader, Tristram Hunt, posher than Tory or Lib Dem Leader.
The idea that there would be a 'second referendum' is the best yet!
The only 'second referendum' will be in 20 years on the same question, if 'yes' is not the answer this time.....If it is, that's it.
Why should one referendum resolve the issue? After all, the one referendum we have had on Europe does not seem to have put that issue to bed - the losers have been demanding a rerun ever since.
Oh yes, the referendum we had nigh on 40...I'll repeat that 40 years ago.. when it wasn't even the EU!!
The one where it's likely the majority of the electorate now couldn't even vote in year, or a large proportion wasn't even born in...
To be fair to anothernick the UK does have form for shabbily ignoring the wishes of the Scots in a referendum as that turnout threshold in the 70s proves.
But that was in the legislation....this one's over the dam, 50% +1 on a 20% turnout would do it......
If the Nats win, Scotland becomes independent. End of.
There is another scenario
Yes wins and the negotiations begin whereupon it is revealed that Eck has indeed been blowing smoke out his arse, and the Blueprint for Brigadoon is not what the Scots are actually going to get
An election in Scotland where the SNP get thumped for lying, and the new administration "while respecting the wishes of the Scottish people for Separation" acknowledges that the negotiations are going to be complex and difficult and take many. many, many years to complete...
To be fair to anothernick the UK does have form for shabbily ignoring the wishes of the Scots in a referendum as that turnout threshold in the 70s proves.
But that was in the legislation....this one's over the dam, 50% +1 on a 20% turnout would do it......
Sequence of events after a YES would be: 1. Parties, 'historic moment', blah, blah, blah and lots of alcohol 2. Detailed negotiations commence once the hangovers clear 3. All party support for not allowing a Sterling area, BoE not to be a Scottish lender of last resort, etc. Salmond's Sterling plan collapses. 4. The EU confirm that the UK was part of the EU but Scotland left and must now reapply - just as they have said before. (They weren't kidding). Scottish government forced into a Euro or Thistle decision on currency - opts for Euro. 5. Scottish people utraged at vote 'Indpendence get Brussels' and SNP collapse in their first GE - with Labour winning a landslide. 6. Scottish government accept there is no mandate for a Euro decision and creates the Thistle - initially at parity with the Pound. Scotland's EU membership application goes on hold. 7. Scotland gets 125bn POUNDS of national debt as its share of the split. Equal to 75% of their GDP. But they argue about this and creditors get very nervous. The Thistle weakens and Scotland's debt as measured in Thistles explodes to well over 100% GDP. 8. Scotland forced into an immediate fiscal and currency crisis. The Central Bank of Scotland prints money to meet their govt debt financing needs - further weaknening the Thistle. Scotland goes to well over 150% GDP in debt and market appetite for Thistle debt dies. 9. Scotland forced into a rapid deflationary austerity / currency death spiral and goes bankrupt. 10. Tumbleweed blows through the streets as zombies and wild dogs fight each other for a few scraps of human flesh.
Thank you for giving me the best laugh on PB since ColinW and his mum last posted on PB.
I actually don't think there will be a yes vote so none of this will arise. But if it does Cameron will get the bulk of the blame. He will be the PM who could not keep the UK united. Of course it won't be entirely his fault, but nevertheless he will get the blame. It wasn't entirely Lord North's fault that the American colonies were lost, and it wasn't entirely Chamberlain's fault that the dictators were appeased but their names are forever associated with the failures over which they presided. Cameron will join them.
How will the world view England, as opposed to the UK? How can we possibly justify a continued seat on the UN Security Council?
Why should anything change? It didn't change for France when it mislaid Algeria, or indeed for the UK when we rapidly shed an empire in the fifties and sixties.
Scotland is 8% of the UK by population. Its independence would not change our position on the world stage at all.
That is absolutely ridiculous. Our Security Council Seat is already looking faintly ludicrous, as we are economically overtaken by vastly bigger countries (e.g. Brazil, India). Why should we have a seat and not them? Or Japan? Or Germany? Or Indonesia?
It's daft and unsustainable.
The UK's seat will be gone in 20 years, no matter what we do (my guess is it will absorbed into a European seat, along with that of France). But if we are instantly shorn of 10% of our GDP and a quarter of our landmass that process will be accelerated. We will be a smaller, weaker country, and that dwindling will be evident to everyone.
Don't be absurd, we have a veto to any change so why would we green-light our own removal? Why for that matter would the French?
Even without Scotland we will have a higher GDP than Russia who have managed to remain an unquestioned permanent member for decades. For the rest of the world not much will change if Scotland goes independent, many around the world already assume England and Britain and the UK to all be the same thing.
The sequence of events if there is a yes vote would, I think, be something like
1 A sense of profound shock and surprise in all quarters, particularly in Scotland 2 Growing calls for the Westminster government to resign immediately, calls which would eventually prove irresistible 3 A UK-wide general election fought on current boundaries including Scotland 4 The return of a Labour or Lib-Lab government 5 Negotiations between the new UK government and Scotland which would lead to a proposal involving a much greater degree of self-government for Scotland but something short of full independence 6 A second referendum on this new proposal
The current referendum will certainly not be the last word on the issue whatever the result.
1. Jubilation in Scotland, indifference in England 'Here's your hat, where's your hurry?' 2. Huge Labour blame game as 'it wiz them that lost it' 3. Cross Party Groups set up to negotiate separation 4. 2015 GE Tories 'Get the best deal for England', Labour 'Um, err...' 5. Hung parliament but coalition continues - eager to complete deal to focus on English issues for 2020. 6. Scotland Independent, SNP win landslide (the last time in their history), Labour leader, Tristram Hunt, posher than Tory or Lib Dem Leader.
The idea that there would be a 'second referendum' is the best yet!
The only 'second referendum' will be in 20 years on the same question, if 'yes' is not the answer this time.....If it is, that's it.
Why should one referendum resolve the issue? After all, the one referendum we have had on Europe does not seem to have put that issue to bed - the losers have been demanding a rerun ever since.
Why two then? Why not best of three, or four with a penalty shoot-out if it's still level?
In any case, the 1975 referendum *did* largely put that issue to bed for twenty years, during which time the EEC had changed into a very different beast.
If the Nats win, Scotland becomes independent. End of.
There is another scenario
Yes wins and the negotiations begin whereupon it is revealed that Eck has indeed been blowing smoke out his arse, and the Blueprint for Brigadoon is not what the Scots are actually going to get
An election in Scotland where the SNP get thumped for lying, and the new administration "while respecting the wishes of the Scottish people for Separation" acknowledges that the negotiations are going to be complex and difficult and take many. many, many years to complete...
That is a interesting issue what happens if the SNP loses in 2016, but gets a yes vote..
Especially if theres a labour government each side of the border... what a stitch up would ensue then...
I always wonder why animals don't usually get zombiefied. I've had a few discussions about zombie animals and, assuming low levels of decay, zombie birds would seem to be the worst kind to face, because you can't fence them out. A thousand zombie crows would make going outside tricky.
What's the SNP policy in the event of a zombie apocalypse?
Sequence of events after a YES would be: 1. Parties, 'historic moment', blah, blah, blah and lots of alcohol 2. Detailed negotiations commence once the hangovers clear 3. All party support for not allowing a Sterling area, BoE not to be a Scottish lender of last resort, etc. Salmond's Sterling plan collapses. 4. The EU confirm that the UK was part of the EU but Scotland left and must now reapply - just as they have said before. (They weren't kidding). Scottish government forced into a Euro or Thistle decision on currency - opts for Euro. 5. Scottish people utraged at vote 'Indpendence get Brussels' and SNP collapse in their first GE - with Labour winning a landslide. 6. Scottish government accept there is no mandate for a Euro decision and creates the Thistle - initially at parity with the Pound. Scotland's EU membership application goes on hold. 7. Scotland gets 125bn POUNDS of national debt as its share of the split. Equal to 75% of their GDP. But they argue about this and creditors get very nervous. The Thistle weakens and Scotland's debt as measured in Thistles explodes to well over 100% GDP. 8. Scotland forced into an immediate fiscal and currency crisis. The Central Bank of Scotland prints money to meet their govt debt financing needs - further weaknening the Thistle. Scotland goes to well over 150% GDP in debt and market appetite for Thistle debt dies. 9. Scotland forced into a rapid deflationary austerity / currency death spiral and goes bankrupt. 10. Tumbleweed blows through the streets as zombies and wild dogs fight each other for a few scraps of human flesh.
Thank you for giving me the best laugh on PB since ColinW and his mum last posted on PB.
I actually don't think there will be a yes vote so none of this will arise. But if it does Cameron will get the bulk of the blame. He will be the PM who could not keep the UK united. Of course it won't be entirely his fault, but nevertheless he will get the blame. It wasn't entirely Lord North's fault that the American colonies were lost, and it wasn't entirely Chamberlain's fault that the dictators were appeased but their names are forever associated with the failures over which they presided. Cameron will join them.
I think the party that promised that Devolution would kill Scottish nationalism stone dead may get the lion's share of the blame.
That's a steaming load of shite. There's no reason whatever the coalition would resign. Or that having voted for independence they'd then get devomax. You've had a brainfart.
I would say if theres a no, theres a good chance they'll get devomax, which is potentially what Salmond is going for.
Then there'll have to be a English response as to how Westminster operates.
The West Lothian Question will need an answer whichever way it goes. We're heading to full lndependence or Devomax. Dave will be chuffed and send a Thank You card to Tony.
Mr. Eagles, I quite agree. Labour's needless and self-evidently moronic devolution has not necessarily cemented the political future of the UK as a single political entity.
I'm proud to say the vast majority of those bands and artists have featured in nighthawks.
David Sylvian was dubbed by the tabloids as "the most beautiful man in the world" in about 1982. Here is is with his band Japan performing Ghosts at the Hammersmith Odeon in November of that year:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHy3b7tsSyk&
I have to confess that Japan's 1981 album "Tin Drum" is one of my top 10 of all time, and the live version "Oil on Canvas" is almost as good.
I always wonder why animals don't usually get zombiefied. I've had a few discussions about zombie animals and, assuming low levels of decay, zombie birds would seem to be the worst kind to face, because you can't fence them out. A thousand zombie crows would make going outside tricky.
What's the SNP policy in the event of a zombie apocalypse?
But if (if) rUK's and Scotland's immigration policies diverge significantly then ISTM it'll thoroughly suit rUK to have a policed border.
Why would it suit the rUK to have a policed border? Do you imagine that foreigners will pretend to become students in Scotland in order to subsequently slip across the unmanned border and work illegally in England rather than, say, take a holiday in England and overstay?
"A point-based system for immigration based on skills would be introduced alongside a reduction in the income threshold and minimum salary levels required for immigrants"
But surely the Scottish government would only issue 'right to remain' in Scotland? Someone with such a restriction would not be able to travel legally to the rest of the CTA without the appropriate Visa - as is the case currently. Random checks and well publicised deportations should be sufficient....
The UK does not make routine immigration checks on passenger travel within the CTA, and passengers are not required to carry a passport or national identity document for immigration purposes. The CTA is a 'free movement' zone, based on the principle that a person who has been allowed to enter one part of the CTA will not normally require permission to enter another part of it while that permission is extent (provided they do not leave the CTA).
However, there are exceptions to this principle - for example, a visa national will need to have a visa if they enter the UK from another part of the CTA.
Mr. Eagles, I quite agree. Labour's needless and self-evidently moronic devolution has not necessarily cemented the political future of the UK as a single political entity.
Perhaps we can have a prize for whoever can find some part of this country that Labour didn't ruin.
As I say, your assertion is based on unending English goodwill accommodating every Scottish desire. This is dim and historically unlikely.
No, my assertion is based on what anyone in power has actually said on the subject (do you have any minister from either Government out there supporting a frontier?) and on the only other example we have to go on but, more importantly, it's mainly based on both sides doing what's in their own best interests.
Mr. Eagles, I quite agree. Labour's needless and self-evidently moronic devolution has not necessarily cemented the political future of the UK as a single political entity.
It could be the greatest strategic blunder since that Varro chap misunderestimated that overrated Carthiginian.
The sequence of events if there is a yes vote would, I think, be something like
1 A sense of profound shock and surprise in all quarters, particularly in Scotland 2 Growing calls for the Westminster government to resign immediately, calls which would eventually prove irresistible 3 A UK-wide general election fought on current boundaries including Scotland 4 The return of a Labour or Lib-Lab government 5 Negotiations between the new UK government and Scotland which would lead to a proposal involving a much greater degree of self-government for Scotland but something short of full independence 6 A second referendum on this new proposal
The current referendum will certainly not be the last word on the issue whatever the result.
1. Jubilation in Scotland, indifference in England 'Here's your hat, where's your hurry?' 2. Huge Labour blame game as 'it wiz them that lost it' 3. Cross Party Groups set up to negotiate separation 4. 2015 GE Tories 'Get the best deal for England', Labour 'Um, err...' 5. Hung parliament but coalition continues - eager to complete deal to focus on English issues for 2020. 6. Scotland Independent, SNP win landslide (the last time in their history), Labour leader, Tristram Hunt, posher than Tory or Lib Dem Leader.
The idea that there would be a 'second referendum' is the best yet!
The only 'second referendum' will be in 20 years on the same question, if 'yes' is not the answer this time.....If it is, that's it.
Why should one referendum resolve the issue? After all, the one referendum we have had on Europe does not seem to have put that issue to bed - the losers have been demanding a rerun ever since.
Why two then? Why not best of three, or four with a penalty shoot-out if it's still level?
In any case, the 1975 referendum *did* largely put that issue to bed for twenty years, during which time the EEC had changed into a very different beast.
Next year's will be the third referendum on Scottish governance in less than 40 years. The last two didn't resolve the issue for very long - why should this one be any more durable?
Also, I humbly request that if Scotland becomes independent they are granted 100% of bagpipes in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It's a bloody diabolical instrument.
Who says it will be? In another 40 years Scotland could become a Republic. But if Scotland votes for independence next year it will be independent by 2016.
I always wonder why animals don't usually get zombiefied. I've had a few discussions about zombie animals and, assuming low levels of decay, zombie birds would seem to be the worst kind to face, because you can't fence them out. A thousand zombie crows would make going outside tricky.
What's the SNP policy in the event of a zombie apocalypse?
I think you'll find that Alex Salmond has a letter from Anders Fogh Rasmussen confirming that declaring Scotland a zombie-free zone would not prejudice Scotland's membership of NATO.
If the Nats win, Scotland becomes independent. End of.
There is another scenario
Yes wins and the negotiations begin whereupon it is revealed that Eck has indeed been blowing smoke out his arse, and the Blueprint for Brigadoon is not what the Scots are actually going to get
An election in Scotland where the SNP get thumped for lying, and the new administration "while respecting the wishes of the Scottish people for Separation" acknowledges that the negotiations are going to be complex and difficult and take many. many, many years to complete...
Nah. There might be a sense of "what the hell have we done" among some, but the sense that they have indeed done it will quickly embed itself. In this case, yes means yes.
"A recent report by the management consultants McKinsey tried to put hard numbers on the consequences. Their findings were shocking. Since 2007, the world’s four most influential central banks have injected more than $4.7 trillion of new money into the world economy. "
The sequence of events if there is a yes vote would, I think, be something like
1 A sense of profound shock and surprise in all quarters, particularly in Scotland 2 Growing calls for the Westminster government to resign immediately, calls which would eventually prove irresistible 3 A UK-wide general election fought on current boundaries including Scotland 4 The return of a Labour or Lib-Lab government 5 Negotiations between the new UK government and Scotland which would lead to a proposal involving a much greater degree of self-government for Scotland but something short of full independence 6 A second referendum on this new proposal
The current referendum will certainly not be the last word on the issue whatever the result.
1. Jubilation in Scotland, indifference in England 'Here's your hat, where's your hurry?' 2. Huge Labour blame game as 'it wiz them that lost it' 3. Cross Party Groups set up to negotiate separation 4. 2015 GE Tories 'Get the best deal for England', Labour 'Um, err...' 5. Hung parliament but coalition continues - eager to complete deal to focus on English issues for 2020. 6. Scotland Independent, SNP win landslide (the last time in their history), Labour leader, Tristram Hunt, posher than Tory or Lib Dem Leader.
The idea that there would be a 'second referendum' is the best yet!
The only 'second referendum' will be in 20 years on the same question, if 'yes' is not the answer this time.....If it is, that's it.
Why should one referendum resolve the issue? After all, the one referendum we have had on Europe does not seem to have put that issue to bed - the losers have been demanding a rerun ever since.
Why two then? Why not best of three, or four with a penalty shoot-out if it's still level?
In any case, the 1975 referendum *did* largely put that issue to bed for twenty years, during which time the EEC had changed into a very different beast.
Next year's will be the third referendum on Scottish governance in less than 40 years. The last two didn't resolve the issue for very long - why should this one be any more durable?
Any referendum lasts as long as it needs to. Whether it be a day, or 100 years.
Mr. Antifrank, that's all well and good, but if a zombie outbreak occurs will Scotland help to fight it, or declare neutrality due to its opposition to the development of the T-virus?
And that's without getting into the fungal zombies of The Last Of Us.
The sequence of events if there is a yes vote would, I think, be something like
1 A sense of profound shock and surprise in all quarters, particularly in Scotland 2 Growing calls for the Westminster government to resign immediately, calls which would eventually prove irresistible 3 A UK-wide general election fought on current boundaries including Scotland 4 The return of a Labour or Lib-Lab government 5 Negotiations between the new UK government and Scotland which would lead to a proposal involving a much greater degree of self-government for Scotland but something short of full independence 6 A second referendum on this new proposal
The current referendum will certainly not be the last word on the issue whatever the result.
1. Jubilation in Scotland, indifference in England 'Here's your hat, where's your hurry?' 2. Huge Labour blame game as 'it wiz them that lost it' 3. Cross Party Groups set up to negotiate separation 4. 2015 GE Tories 'Get the best deal for England', Labour 'Um, err...' 5. Hung parliament but coalition continues - eager to complete deal to focus on English issues for 2020. 6. Scotland Independent, SNP win landslide (the last time in their history), Labour leader, Tristram Hunt, posher than Tory or Lib Dem Leader.
The idea that there would be a 'second referendum' is the best yet!
The only 'second referendum' will be in 20 years on the same question, if 'yes' is not the answer this time.....If it is, that's it.
Why should one referendum resolve the issue? After all, the one referendum we have had on Europe does not seem to have put that issue to bed - the losers have been demanding a rerun ever since.
Why two then? Why not best of three, or four with a penalty shoot-out if it's still level?
In any case, the 1975 referendum *did* largely put that issue to bed for twenty years, during which time the EEC had changed into a very different beast.
Next year's will be the third referendum on Scottish governance in less than 40 years. The last two didn't resolve the issue for very long - why should this one be any more durable?
The first one didn't last long as it was a blatently unfair result (although it did last about ten years anyway). The second is still holding and if this current one's a No - as I expect - should be good for 30-40 years at least.
There might be a sense of "what the hell have we done" among some, but the sense that they have indeed done it will quickly embed itself. In this case, yes means yes.
The voters are not going to reward Eck for selling them a pig in a poke.
Are there any other Japan / David Sylvian fans on the site? I'm obsessed with the band, although I wasn't even around when they started.
I have Quiet Life, Gentlemen Take Polaroids and Tin Drum. They're some of my favourite albums. I saw David Sylvian with Robert Fripp in 1993, and also have David Sylvian Gone to Earth.
The sequence of events if there is a yes vote would, I think, be something like
1 A sense of profound shock and surprise in all quarters, particularly in Scotland 2 Growing calls for the Westminster government to resign immediately, calls which would eventually prove irresistible 3 A UK-wide general election fought on current boundaries including Scotland 4 The return of a Labour or Lib-Lab government 5 Negotiations between the new UK government and Scotland which would lead to a proposal involving a much greater degree of self-government for Scotland but something short of full independence 6 A second referendum on this new proposal
The current referendum will certainly not be the last word on the issue whatever the result.
1. Jubilation in Scotland, indifference in England 'Here's your hat, where's your hurry?' 2. Huge Labour blame game as 'it wiz them that lost it' 3. Cross Party Groups set up to negotiate separation 4. 2015 GE Tories 'Get the best deal for England', Labour 'Um, err...' 5. Hung parliament but coalition continues - eager to complete deal to focus on English issues for 2020. 6. Scotland Independent, SNP win landslide (the last time in their history), Labour leader, Tristram Hunt, posher than Tory or Lib Dem Leader.
The idea that there would be a 'second referendum' is the best yet!
The only 'second referendum' will be in 20 years on the same question, if 'yes' is not the answer this time.....If it is, that's it.
Why should one referendum resolve the issue? After all, the one referendum we have had on Europe does not seem to have put that issue to bed - the losers have been demanding a rerun ever since.
There might be a sense of "what the hell have we done" among some, but the sense that they have indeed done it will quickly embed itself. In this case, yes means yes.
The voters are not going to reward Eck for selling them a pig in a poke.
Well more fool them if they buy it, as Unionist campaigners will no doubt say over the next year, albeit more subtly than that.
There might be a sense of "what the hell have we done" among some, but the sense that they have indeed done it will quickly embed itself. In this case, yes means yes.
The voters are not going to reward Eck for selling them a pig in a poke.
If it is a yes vote the Scottish Government intends to wrap up independence before the next Scottish General Election.
The sequence of events if there is a yes vote would, I think, be something like
1 A sense of profound shock and surprise in all quarters, particularly in Scotland 2 Growing calls for the Westminster government to resign immediately, calls which would eventually prove irresistible 3 A UK-wide general election fought on current boundaries including Scotland 4 The return of a Labour or Lib-Lab government 5 Negotiations between the new UK government and Scotland which would lead to a proposal involving a much greater degree of self-government for Scotland but something short of full independence 6 A second referendum on this new proposal
The current referendum will certainly not be the last word on the issue whatever the result.
1. Jubilation in Scotland, indifference in England 'Here's your hat, where's your hurry?' 2. Huge Labour blame game as 'it wiz them that lost it' 3. Cross Party Groups set up to negotiate separation 4. 2015 GE Tories 'Get the best deal for England', Labour 'Um, err...' 5. Hung parliament but coalition continues - eager to complete deal to focus on English issues for 2020. 6. Scotland Independent, SNP win landslide (the last time in their history), Labour leader, Tristram Hunt, posher than Tory or Lib Dem Leader.
The idea that there would be a 'second referendum' is the best yet!
The only 'second referendum' will be in 20 years on the same question, if 'yes' is not the answer this time.....If it is, that's it.
Why should one referendum resolve the issue? After all, the one referendum we have had on Europe does not seem to have put that issue to bed - the losers have been demanding a rerun ever since.
Why two then? Why not best of three, or four with a penalty shoot-out if it's still level?
In any case, the 1975 referendum *did* largely put that issue to bed for twenty years, during which time the EEC had changed into a very different beast.
Next year's will be the third referendum on Scottish governance in less than 40 years. The last two didn't resolve the issue for very long - why should this one be any more durable?
The first one didn't last long as it was a blatently unfair result (although it did last about ten years anyway). The second is still holding and if this current one's a No - as I expect - should be good for 30-40 years at least.
We'll get a referendum for devomax way before 30-40 years...within a few years at most.
There might be a sense of "what the hell have we done" among some, but the sense that they have indeed done it will quickly embed itself. In this case, yes means yes.
The voters are not going to reward Eck for selling them a pig in a poke.
If it is a yes vote the Scottish Government intends to wrap up independence before the next Scottish General Election.
That's only 2 years. If labour win the next election, do you really think they won't do everything they have the power to to damage the SNP's chances next election?
If it is a yes vote the Scottish Government intends to wrap up independence before the next Scottish General Election.
The SNP intends free ponies for all. When it doesn't happen, there will be ramifications.
You can be pretty sure that when the SNP says it intends to deliver independence before the next Scottish GE after a yes vote in the referendum that they will deliver it. Your scenario simply isnt possible (and Anothernick's one is bonkers).
That's only 2 years. If labour win the next election, do you really think they won't do everything they have the power to to damage the SNP's chances next election?
With a yes result in the referendum the SNP wont need anyone else's permission to proceed with Independence.
You can be pretty sure that when the SNP says it intends to deliver independence before the next Scottish GE after a yes vote in the referendum that they will deliver it.
You can be pretty sure that when the SNP says it intends to deliver independence before the next Scottish GE after a yes vote in the referendum that they will deliver it.
If that means no EU, no Sterling, no NATO?
Eck may be daft, but he's not stupid.
What part of "independence referendum" are you failing to understand?
It's actually a VERY pertinent question: What happens if it's YES but all the detailed negotiations end up with Scotland not getting what Eck wants? Are they obliged to follow through or can the Scottish Government renege on the referendum result?
What part of Eck's Blueprint for Brigadoon are you failing to understand.
Talk to fellow Scots about any issues you have with the case for independence. But dont delude yourself into thinking a yes vote means anything other than independence.
That's only 2 years. If labour win the next election, do you really think they won't do everything they have the power to to damage the SNP's chances next election?
With a yes result in the referendum the SNP wont need anyone else's permission to proceed with Independence.
Depends what you mean by proceed. There will need to be a settlement between Scotland and rUK.
Scotland can decide it wants a divorce, but it'll need the equivalent of a decree nisi to make it formal (and meaningful) wouldn't it?
Comments
My position also has the backing of the Scottish Government and others. They know different countries pursue different immigration policies but they still deny there will be a need for a frontier.
The issue of those dangerous Romanians has been a political hot potato in the UK this year. Yet Ireland ended restrictions on Romanians and Bulgarians early without anyone suggesting that a frontier between Ireland and the UK would be required.
It's unlikely, but it's possible.
I never said that though did I. It does seem odd that the No side is ahead at all given how hopeless you seem to believe they are, out of interest where do you think the yes side are going wrong given the current gap in the polls . And 13% of people want more information, how about those Unionists who have seen more than enough information to work out that the Nationalist position just isn't credible.
The CTA nearly came a cropper a couple of years back when Passport Checks were proposed - but it is to be hoped the Coalition will not be as authoritarian as Labour:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jan/15/uk-irish-republic-border-passports
1 A sense of profound shock and surprise in all quarters, particularly in Scotland
2 Growing calls for the Westminster government to resign immediately, calls which would eventually prove irresistible
3 A UK-wide general election fought on current boundaries including Scotland
4 The return of a Labour or Lib-Lab government
5 Negotiations between the new UK government and Scotland which would lead to a proposal involving a much greater degree of self-government for Scotland but something short of full independence
6 A second referendum on this new proposal
The current referendum will certainly not be the last word on the issue whatever the result.
5 - No. Scotland would have just voted for independence, and that is what they will get.
2. Huge Labour blame game as 'it wiz them that lost it'
3. Cross Party Groups set up to negotiate separation
4. 2015 GE Tories 'Get the best deal for England', Labour 'Um, err...'
5. Hung parliament but coalition continues - eager to complete deal to focus on English issues for 2020.
6. Scotland Independent, SNP win landslide (the last time in their history), Labour leader, Tristram Hunt, posher than Tory or Lib Dem Leader.
The idea that there would be a 'second referendum' is the best yet!
The only 'second referendum' will be in 20 years on the same question, if 'yes' is not the answer this time.....If it is, that's it.
That's a steaming load of shite. There's no reason whatever the coalition would resign. Or that having voted for independence they'd then get devomax. You've had a brainfart.
IND Gain from SNP
Highland Council remains an SNP/LD/Lab coalition. New composition:
Ind 36 cllrs
SNP 21
LD 15
Lab 8
If 50% +1 in Scotland vote for independence, thats it.
Only history will determine whether it was a 'disaster' - and on which side(s) of the border.
What should Cameron have done... banned a referendum? Don't be silly.
That's a keeper.
You are the antithesis of Dan Hodges.
No matter what it is, it is bad for Dave.
Thank you for giving me the best laugh on PB since ColinW and his mum last posted on PB.
Then there'll have to be a English response as to how Westminster operates.
All we need is a fourth rate European football team on the border and the Scots will never get past.
If the Nats win, Scotland becomes independent. End of. 'We've changed the government in Westminster, could you do it again please?' will never wash. They'd say 'No'. And they'd be right to.....
The one where it's likely the majority of the electorate now couldn't even vote in year, or a large proportion wasn't even born in...
http://djrioblog.com/2013/11/26/new-wave-artists-aging-gracefully-an-80s-world-gone-by/
Yes wins and the negotiations begin whereupon it is revealed that Eck has indeed been blowing smoke out his arse, and the Blueprint for Brigadoon is not what the Scots are actually going to get
An election in Scotland where the SNP get thumped for lying, and the new administration "while respecting the wishes of the Scottish people for Separation" acknowledges that the negotiations are going to be complex and difficult and take many. many, many years to complete...
I'm proud to say the vast majority of those bands and artists have featured in nighthawks.
1. Parties, 'historic moment', blah, blah, blah and lots of alcohol
2. Detailed negotiations commence once the hangovers clear
3. All party support for not allowing a Sterling area, BoE not to be a Scottish lender of last resort, etc. Salmond's Sterling plan collapses.
4. The EU confirm that the UK was part of the EU but Scotland left and must now reapply - just as they have said before. (They weren't kidding). Scottish government forced into a Euro or Thistle decision on currency - opts for Euro.
5. Scottish people utraged at vote 'Indpendence get Brussels' and SNP collapse in their first GE - with Labour winning a landslide.
6. Scottish government accept there is no mandate for a Euro decision and creates the Thistle - initially at parity with the Pound. Scotland's EU membership application goes on hold.
7. Scotland gets 125bn POUNDS of national debt as its share of the split. Equal to 75% of their GDP. But they argue about this and creditors get very nervous. The Thistle weakens and Scotland's debt as measured in Thistles explodes to well over 100% GDP.
8. Scotland forced into an immediate fiscal and currency crisis. The Central Bank of Scotland prints money to meet their govt debt financing needs - further weaknening the Thistle. Scotland goes to well over 150% GDP in debt and market appetite for Thistle debt dies.
9. Scotland forced into a rapid deflationary austerity / currency death spiral and goes bankrupt.
10. Tumbleweed blows through the streets as zombies and wild dogs fight each other for a few scraps of human flesh.
Even without Scotland we will have a higher GDP than Russia who have managed to remain an unquestioned permanent member for decades. For the rest of the world not much will change if Scotland goes independent, many around the world already assume England and Britain and the UK to all be the same thing.
In any case, the 1975 referendum *did* largely put that issue to bed for twenty years, during which time the EEC had changed into a very different beast.
Especially if theres a labour government each side of the border... what a stitch up would ensue then...
Mr. Patrick, what about wild zombie dogs?
I always wonder why animals don't usually get zombiefied. I've had a few discussions about zombie animals and, assuming low levels of decay, zombie birds would seem to be the worst kind to face, because you can't fence them out. A thousand zombie crows would make going outside tricky.
What's the SNP policy in the event of a zombie apocalypse?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHy3b7tsSyk&
I have to confess that Japan's 1981 album "Tin Drum" is one of my top 10 of all time, and the live version "Oil on Canvas" is almost as good.
The UK does not make routine immigration checks on passenger travel within the CTA, and passengers are not required to carry a passport or national identity document for immigration purposes. The CTA is a 'free movement' zone, based on the principle that a person who has been allowed to enter one part of the CTA will not normally require permission to enter another part of it while that permission is extent (provided they do not leave the CTA).
However, there are exceptions to this principle - for example, a visa national will need to have a visa if they enter the UK from another part of the CTA.
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/customs-travel/Enteringtheuk/arrivingatukborder/travellingtocommontravelarea/
Mr. Next, perhaps, but I wouldn't bet on it.
We'll need to factor canine zombieism into Scotland's future.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=V83JR2IoI8k&
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/10481003/Pensions-misery-looms-for-the-have-it-all-generation.html
"A recent report by the management consultants McKinsey tried to put hard numbers on the consequences. Their findings were shocking. Since 2007, the world’s four most influential central banks have injected more than $4.7 trillion of new money into the world economy. "
Theres no rules for these things you know...
And that's without getting into the fungal zombies of The Last Of Us.
I refer you to m'learned friend TSE and his knowledge of 'the banter'.
I love star trek, but those were truly turgid.
I prefer the (original) cybermen. That said, First Contact is the only good Next Generation film.
"Bloody hell indeed.
I'm proud to say the vast majority of those bands and artists have featured in nighthawks."
And I've recently had lunch with one of them and i can confirm he looks better than he did in his heyday
Edit : and Mick Karn Dreams of Reason
The link?
They were written and directed by The Shatner.
Eck may be daft, but he's not stupid.
When Eck is unable to deliver all of the goodies he has promised, there will be ramifications.
Wars boost popularity of PMs, and well we can go oop North and invade Scotland, annex Scotland and make Mark Thatcher, the Viceroy of Scotland.
Scotland can decide it wants a divorce, but it'll need the equivalent of a decree nisi to make it formal (and meaningful) wouldn't it?
Or will they get their own top 40 and X-Factor?