You are paying far too much attention to the air war. As I said at the beginning of the thread, it is the best ground war that will win the IndyRef.
By their very nature, nearly all PB commenters are very poorly placed to comment on the ground war. And boy, does it show.
Really?
*tears of laughter etc*
Those too dim to understand the difference between throwaway comments on a "discrete" (chortle) blog and leafleting/voter drives as well as GOTV on the ground are almost as funny as those who seem to have forgotten that AV was destroyed mainly because of Clegg's toxicity. (despite Yes to AV being well ahead in some polling before the vote) Well it's not just Clegg supporting No to independence, it's Cameron, Osbrowne and little Ed to name just a few more of their 'assets'.
I've also yet to see anyone on here explain precisely why Gordon Brown hasn't yet stepped down despite his very telling avoidance of the commons. When they work that out their prognostications on scottish politics might be worth taking more seriously but I see absolutely no sign of even that yet.
I've also yet to see anyone on here explain precisely why Gordon Brown hasn't yet stepped down despite his very telling avoidance of the commons. When they work that out their prognostications on scottish politics might be worth taking more seriously but I see absolutely no sign of even that yet.
Well, you obviously think you know the answer, so why not astound us with your insight?
No. Your argument was about Scotland having nothing other than the public sector to it's economy. THat is patently nbot true. I don't think and I hope the Scots won't vote for independence but there is nothing that winds me up more than a poorly thought through argument. If anything EVENTS will lead to Scottish Independence, not the other way round.
So far as I am aware there are currently no accurate or reliable figures for intra UK trade. The Scottish government has done some work on this but even they seem to accept their work is tentative. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/11/2485808/58104 Their work since that time has been more focussed on exports than imports.
For Scotland this is clearly much, much more important than it is for rUK. We would be a branch economy in an independent country. Sheer size alone mean that rUK would be at least 10x as important market for Scotland as Scotland would be for rUK.
At the moment it seems likely to me that Scotland would run a surplus with rUK based on oil, food and beverages and financial services. Whether we would run a surplus overall is harder to say. Scottish GDP is broadly similar to the UK average. This would suggest that we consume as much as we produce, possibly a little more as the rUK does. Growth of exports in recent times has been in the export of business services and cars, in neither of which Scotland is a serious player.
Looking ahead the position becomes more problematic. A collapse in the Scottish financial services industry simply seems inevitable if we, as proposed, create our own regulator and become a foreign provider of services for the very large market within the UK. Businesses such as our large banks and Standard Life will move south to be regulated by rUK institutions and jobs will go with them. It really is silly to pretend otherwise.
Oil production has been falling very sharply in recent years. In fact this is one of the major reasons there has not been more improvement in UK exports and indeed growth in the 2010-2012 period. There is a chance that this will be stabilised for a while but the marginal cost of new production is much higher and there will be less profit to tax in the future.
Where countries have broken up internationally the amount of intra country trade has fallen very sharply. As I say this is a much bigger problem for Scotland than rUK. It is possible Scotland will find alternative markets for its products. It is probable we will have some years in which to adapt before there is any sort of crisis. It is possible that we may become an energy exporter to rUK for renewables although the wastage in transportation of that energy is an issue.
All of this assumes no major dislocation such as Scotland not being in the EU from day 1, rUK not leaving the EU, no immediate problems in setting a credible budget and no major impact on the balance of trade from the inevitable cuts in public spending an independent Scotland would have to introduce.
No. Your argument was about Scotland having nothing other than the public sector to it's economy. THat is patently nbot true. I don't think and I hope the Scots won't vote for independence but there is nothing that winds me up more than a poorly thought through argument. If anything EVENTS will lead to Scottish Independence, not the other way round.
Curious; and curiouser still.... *
I have experience in global-logistics: The number of times I am asked why someplace outwith Oslo or Bern cannot have a pickup would take a life-time to explain. Unless, that is, the service is too expensive to support!
Not my decision; if the delivery/pick-up is not supported by the business-model well..., it is not sustainable.
Royal-Mail, Centrica and National-Grid are other exemplars: No enriched Scotsman would expect 'impoverished' England to be taxed in order to sustain Scots' prices at Uk levels, no? Ill-thought plans by a poor political structure: Scots' are free to determine their own outcome; they cannot dictate to England (nor conflate progressive politics with a refusal to fund their 'Celtic cousins'.
* Who said anything was accredited to MacMillan? Another Sunil-on-Sunday Daily Short....
E.T.A.: Running Firefox 5 sadly! Crappy version but suitable for RSA systems....
You wouldn't be holding back the brightest, however you would be giving an opportunity to those on both sides of the SM/grammar dividing line.
So you wilfully admit that you would mix those near the dividing line and not stream them properly.
If you are going to label 80% of the population 'thickies', that rather undermines your ability to argue from a rational starting point.
Hardly, I am merely referring to the bottom one or two classes. Everybody, including the thickies themselves already know who they are.
There is a shortage of suitable applicants for posts even decent comprehensives in difficult parts of the country. Do you think that stripping the top 20% from these schools is going to improve that situation. Simply saying that there are enough globally completely misses the point.
There are more than enough people capable of becoming teachers in this country already. They clearly don't need to already have a degree or to have gone to teacher training indoctrination.
For many secondary teachers, having good quality A level classes is the point at which they can stretch and test their own academic ability. Not being able to offer those classes is a disincentive in recruitment, especially for the most academically able teachers: what's the point in gaining a First Class degree if you're going to spend your life teaching Y8 set 4? That's distinct from the motivation in teaching itself.
Wrong again. Its not about teachers stretching their own ability, its about the pupils getting a good education. Notice the difference, its results orientated. First class honours degrees are not needed for most teachers, I'm so glad you actually agree with me here. So lets have grammer schools where teachers with Firsts can teach properly and not waste their degree.
p.s. There should be an apostrophe in "dunces cap".
Look everybody, David_Herdson prefers style over substance.
You wouldn't be holding back the brightest, however you would be giving an opportunity to those on both sides of the SM/grammar dividing line.
So you wilfully admit that you would mix those near the dividing line and not stream them properly.Gaie,
It seems a truism to suggest that the "dividing line" should be porous. There will be errors both ways - those just below the dividing line who will succeed in a Grammar School environment, and those above it who might not. In addition, children's abilities will change between the ages of 11 and 16. By teaching both streams in the same school, you allow corrections to be made and give everyone greater opportunity.
Wrong again. Its not about teachers stretching their own ability, its about the pupils getting a good education.
No, teachers have free will. They will choose to apply for schools where they get the opportunity to teach A Level. The best teachers are enthusiasts for their subject.
A collapse in the Scottish financial services industry simply seems inevitable if we, as proposed, create our own regulator and become a foreign provider of services for the very large market within the UK. Businesses such as our large banks and Standard Life will move south to be regulated by rUK institutions and jobs will go with them. It really is silly to pretend otherwise.
This is where you get an actual, genuine, non-bullshit EU disagreement. What Scotland would want to do would be make their regulations a little bit looser than London. But the rest of the EU think financial deregulation was one of the main causes of their current problems, and they're going to be in no mood to let Scotland do that if they can possibly avoid it.
Meanwhile the rUK is going to be playing one role in one relationship and another role in another: They want to be able to sell to EU consumers while abiding by as little regulation as possible to attract all the business from other member states, but they won't want to let Scotland do to them what they're doing to the rest of the EU.
not everone can be a winner, nature makes it perfectly clear that there must be losers too.
Goodness me, look at you, branding millions of children as 'losers' at the age of 11, just because they can't pass a few examinations.
Perhaps we should brand the millions you would dump into a new generation of secondary moderns 'loser schools'.
Academic prowess is one route to success, but by no means the only one. I've lost count of the number of successful businessmen biogs I've read that start with 'dropped out of school at 15'.
Hear, hear. Not being the most gifted academically doesn't make you a loser.
I have been working weekends since the eighties, not sure what is really new. I was in the Hospital most of the day yesterday as Consultant.
That said, I am increasingly impressed by the Lansley reforms, and how they are working on the ground. It is the most positive atmosphere when negotiating with the CCGs for over a decade. I think Norman Lamb is doing a great job.
O/T ..Good to see the NHS becoming a seven day a week organisation...what took it so long to do the obvious. Well done Hunt.
I've no significant personal knowledge, but one has to be a bit careful about the stats here because it's not clear that the sample is of averagely ill patients. Anecdotally it does sound as though there's a genuine problem to be addressed, but it's probably not as large as the stats suggest. People who go into hospital at weekends may on average be more seriously ill (and therefore sadly more likely to die even if care levels were exactly the same) - if you have a problem unlikely to be risky (say a hip replacement), you may have a scheduled hospital stay that is more likely to start during the week, and if you just don't feel well at the weekend you may wait to see your GP on Monday before he decides to send you to hospital. Conversely, if you have a heart attack or similar life-threatening condition, you'll go to hospital whatever day it is.
My understanding was the bulk of the difference was down to the greater severity of the situation for patients admitted at the weeknd
A collapse in the Scottish financial services industry simply seems inevitable if we, as proposed, create our own regulator and become a foreign provider of services for the very large market within the UK. Businesses such as our large banks and Standard Life will move south to be regulated by rUK institutions and jobs will go with them. It really is silly to pretend otherwise.
This is where you get an actual, genuine, non-bullshit EU disagreement. What Scotland would want to do would be make their regulations a little bit looser than London. But the rest of the EU think financial deregulation was one of the main causes of their current problems, and they're going to be in no mood to let Scotland do that if they can possibly avoid it.
Meanwhile the rUK is going to be playing one role in one relationship and another role in another: They want to be able to sell to EU consumers while abiding by as little regulation as possible to attract all the business from other member states, but they won't want to let Scotland do to them what they're doing to the rest of the EU.
Assuming Scotland kept the pound, all the Scottish financial services industry would move south of the border. Essentially, borrowing costs for a Scottish back that was not implicitly backed by the back of England would be prohibitively high. (See Cyprus for examples.)
There is a quite an interesting article on this relating to William Beveridge's original intentions regarding welfare (only used as a last resort and you get out what you put in) and personal responsibility.
"By taking tough decisions, the Coalition has brought the benefits bill under control, saving the taxpayer £19 billion to date. But, just as important, we’re restoring fairness to the system.
Not the equality of outcome espoused by the Left, but real fairness – that very British idea that you should get out what you put in. It is why the driving principle of the Government’s welfare reforms is that it should always pay more to be in work than out of it."....
"We’ve learnt from Labour’s disastrous rollout of tax credits, which saw billions of pounds lost to fraud and error between 2003 and 2009, and we’re determined not to make the same mistakes"
...Meanwhile the rUK is going to be playing one role in one relationship and another role in another: They want to be able to sell to EU consumers while abiding by as little regulation as possible to attract all the business from other member states, but they won't want to let Scotland do to them what they're doing to the rest of the EU.
Ermm...,
Gaijin: No klomplend.
Scotland's Edinborough's financial companies are owned - in all extent - by the English tax-payer. The SNats want the English tax-payer to underwrite any losses these Edinborough excuses make through financial mismanagement, incompetence or ignorance.
Come 'independence' why should the English tax-payer fund foreign governments (directly or otherwise)? Correlation =/= causation: Just because nationalists in Sweden and Switzerland got wealthy in 1939-1945 does not mean that their Scots' counter-parts will not have that ambition....
"Scotland continues to show a net trade deficit, with the value of exports below the value of imports, although these figures exclude trade in crude oil and natural gas extracted from North Sea. The deficit in net trade narrowed to £2.6 billion in the first quarter of 2013, from £2.8 billion in the previous quarter. This was due to growth in the value of exports totalling 3.0%, largely to the rest of the UK, while there was lower growth of 1.6% in the value of imports (including account balancing items). Compared to 2012 Q1, the net trade deficit has widened by 12.4% from £2.3 billion, due to growth in the value of imports outweighing the increase in exports to the rest of the UK. Over the year, the value of exports to the rest of the world is estimated to have decreased by 0.9% (-£46 million)."
Since the UK exports about £30bn of oil related products a conservative estimate would be that these figures might be improved by £7.5bn a quarter. This is probably low since most NS oil will be consumed in the UK but quite a lot of the value added on the base product will be added in England. If the Scottish Government figures are anywhere near reliable (big if given how many UK departments simply don't record this sort of information) then Scotland should be running a reasonable surplus ceteris paribus.
The paper also reports GDP per capita excluding oil for Scotland of £24K but this rises to £27,900 per capita when North sea oil is included. The latter figure is somewhat ahead of the UK average.
David is talking about setting, not streaming. This is the most effective to ensure the best education - not every mathmo is good at languages for instance.
@rcs1000 I would have thought the fund management - one of Scotland's strengths in financial services - could do pretty well in an independent set up (rather like Dublin) and it doesn't face the same LoLR issues as the big banks
David is talking about setting, not streaming. This is the most effective to ensure the best education - not every mathmo is good at languages for instance.
@rcs1000 I would have thought the fund management - one of Scotland's strengths in financial services - could do pretty well in an independent set up (rather like Dublin) and it doesn't face the same LoLR issues as the big banks
Yes, you're right, Aberdeen and Baillie Gifford would do fine.
Border posts, No issue from my side but given they have none with Ireland it would seem odd to do it with your major trading partner , given we will be in EU and not in Schengen then it is even more stupid. Just pathetic argument.
EU - having been in it for over 40 years and given the natural resources , it will be a painless transfer between YES vote and 2016.
Roaming - EU have made it illegal so just stupidity
Pound - rump UK will not cut off its nose to spite its face. Plenty in EU who are not in Euro and will never join
Supermarkets was just a plain lie , nobody has any idea on the costs as food goes both ways and given the amount of Scottish goods going south it could be up or down in both Scotland and England. Competion would mean in practice that they would be out of business quickly.
ONE thing is certain , we will get ever more budget cuts from Westminster.
The UK and Ireland have an opt-out from Schengen. Other countries that join the EU are obliged to join (after a period). You are assuming Scotland will be treated as an existing member of the EU, and not a new joiner. That's a big assumption to make. Even if you are treated as a current member, there could be a price to pay. "We will treat you as an existing member as long as you accept Schengen and the Euro. Otherwise, apply to join on Independence day". Similarly those countries which are not in the Euro joined when it was not compulsory or, like the Swedes, have chosen not to meet the convergence criteria. That is no longer allowed.
On the pound, I don't see why we need to allow you access to the decision making process. Your position would be like Kosovo, which uses the Euro but has no input to the European Central Bank. Tenable, but I would have thought either having your own currency or formally joining the Euro would be preferable.
Supermarkets - yes I did say it was an unknown. Surprised if you have effective competition in Scotland though outside the central belt and other large towns & cities. I would have thought the distribution cost from depots to stores would be well known, and your argument actually talks about import/export costs between England and Scotland so I guess you are conveniently trying to ignore this.
The EU is not making roaming illegal, simply capping the cost (although I admit I was unaware by how much and how quickly, I just had to look it up on wikipedia). Only one of my arguments involved roaming though. In any case, I don't think the EU is forcing operators to include roaming in packages, so those people who get "free" data, texts and minutes still have to pay extra when abroad. [Although I might review whether I continue with the Vodafone Eurotraveller package (£2 a day for effectively unlimited use abroad) or go onto PAYG for roaming after July 2014.]
Budget cuts? Of course. I thought you were a fairly right-wing SNPer and would be all in favour of them.
John, agree there are things that could go either way but are not the major issues they are being painted as. I am right wing but still believe in a fairer society then the one that Westminster envisages. Should be nothing for nothing and the rich should pay their fair share. I am happy to pay high taxes if being used properly. Not happy buying nuclear bombs , funding illegal wars and propping up the rich whilst demonising the poor.
You are paying far too much attention to the air war. As I said at the beginning of the thread, it is the best ground war that will win the IndyRef.
By their very nature, nearly all PB commenters are very poorly placed to comment on the ground war. And boy, does it show.
Really?
*tears of laughter etc*
Those too dim to understand the difference between throwaway comments on a "discrete" (chortle) blog and leafleting/voter drives as well as GOTV on the ground are almost as funny as those who seem to have forgotten that AV was destroyed mainly because of Clegg's toxicity. (despite Yes to AV being well ahead in some polling before the vote) Well it's not just Clegg supporting No to independence, it's Cameron, Osbrowne and little Ed to name just a few more of their 'assets'.
I've also yet to see anyone on here explain precisely why Gordon Brown hasn't yet stepped down despite his very telling avoidance of the commons. When they work that out their prognostications on scottish politics might be worth taking more seriously but I see absolutely no sign of even that yet.
Yes2AV lost largely because it refused to engage with anyone to the right of Vince Cable, despite there being a few Tories inclined to support it and with UKIP very much potentially onside. As a result, they wrote off around 55% of the electorate in one go, in order to preserve the Progressive purity of their campaign; No adopted a far more pragmatic - and effective - approach, accepting support wherever it came from. See any parallels to Scotland?
Talking about oil won't help the unionist argument. It may be a declining resource but it is Scotland's. Blackmailing to send jobs from the Clyde to Portsmouth OTOH has far more mileage as a threat.
BAE have started to expand the Glasgow yard at Scotstoun greatly to enable it to handle big warships, eventually Govan will close and it will consolidate in much bigger yard across the Clyde take from that what you will.
The paper also reports GDP per capita excluding oil for Scotland of £24K but this rises to £27,900 per capita when North sea oil is included. The latter figure is somewhat ahead of the UK average.
DavidL, thanks for the research....
So when East Kilbride becomes as distant from "London" as Dehli we have an open-market in which Scotland will have to compete? East Kilbribe will no longer an issue in 'Westminster'....
Being "progressive" whilst trying not to be antagonistic to the Taffs and Ulster-Scots may play well in North Britain: Is Wee-Eck's plan just to upset the English?* Why do your fellow Scots not argue for independence as an historical right (as your nation is no equal to England; the North-East region thereof is a more egalitarian sample) and only fight around the mythical MacGormless magic-money-tree...?
David is talking about setting, not streaming. This is the most effective to ensure the best education - not every mathmo is good at languages for instance.
@rcs1000 I would have thought the fund management - one of Scotland's strengths in financial services - could do pretty well in an independent set up (rather like Dublin) and it doesn't face the same LoLR issues as the big banks
Wouldn't it make sense for Grammar schools to be for mathmo's that are good at languages and English then, and those that only excel at maths go to a comp that is geared towards maths related subjects?
BAE have started to expand the Glasgow yard at Scotstoun greatly to enable it to handle big warships, eventually Govan will close and it will consolidate in much bigger yard across the Clyde take from that what you will.
Scotstoun - IAUI - is surrounded by homes. How does BAe Systems plan to "expand"...?
The paper also reports GDP per capita excluding oil for Scotland of £24K but this rises to £27,900 per capita when North sea oil is included. The latter figure is somewhat ahead of the UK average.
DavidL, thanks for the research....
So when East Kilbride becomes as distant from "London" as Dehli we have an open-market in which Scotland will have to compete? East Kilbribe will no longer an issue in 'Westminster'....
Being "progressive" whilst trying not to be antagonistic to the Taffs and Ulster-Scots may play well in North Britain: Is Wee-Eck's plan just to upset the English?* Why do your fellow Scots not argue for independence as an historical right (as your nation is no equal to England; the North-East region thereof is a more egalitarian sample) and only fight around the mythical MacGormless magic-money-tree...?
* We have a history of "managing" the North!
Not entirely sure I understand your question but yes, there would be open competition. The idea that a Chancellor who has gone to China and the middle east seeking additional financial services for London with considerable success would not pop up to Edinburgh with a view to clearing out several thousand high paying jobs is frankly hilarious, particularly when he has a pack of aces to play in regulation, access, lender of last resort etc.
Ultimately the question of whether Scotland should be an independent country will depend on whether the majority of Scots want to be British or not. I have never really believed that this argument is going to turn on a few quid one way or the other. It really shouldn't.
Without the usual discussion about how to fry/boil/broil/roast/natively eat a squirrel - and squirrel; red, gray or flying - we have had another session of meaningful discourse, debate and education. *
I know that he-who-cannot-control-his-latvian-homophobe-care-workers name affliction is missing but; I hope that he understands that sometimes gutter-politics don't work. I am sure me-mukkah Junior will relent soon...
...Meanwhile the rUK is going to be playing one role in one relationship and another role in another: They want to be able to sell to EU consumers while abiding by as little regulation as possible to attract all the business from other member states, but they won't want to let Scotland do to them what they're doing to the rest of the EU.
Ermm...,
Gaijin: No klomplend.
Scotland's Edinborough's financial companies are owned - in all extent - by the English tax-payer. The SNats want the English tax-payer to underwrite any losses these Edinborough excuses make through financial mismanagement, incompetence or ignorance.
Come 'independence' why should the English tax-payer fund foreign governments (directly or otherwise)? Correlation =/= causation: Just because nationalists in Sweden and Switzerland got wealthy in 1939-1945 does not mean that their Scots' counter-parts will not have that ambition....
'UK taxpayer, as any fule kno, not 'English' taxpayer.
Confusing England and the UK is one of the problems that bedevils discussion of the indy issue, to put it mildly.
And on that basis, the Scots would expect to take a population share (or similar) of the UK Gmt holding of shares in RBS (including Nat West), etc., as part of the sensible assets and debt divvy up. That happens to be about the same proportion as their activity. So I can't understand what the problem is.
... sorry, forgot: and likewise, post indy, the Scots would take their share of regulating and underwriting banks' activity in their territory, just as the US did it for the bits of RBS etc in the US, as I understand it. So I don't understand the argument here.
You are paying far too much attention to the air war. As I said at the beginning of the thread, it is the best ground war that will win the IndyRef.
By their very nature, nearly all PB commenters are very poorly placed to comment on the ground war. And boy, does it show.
Really?
*tears of laughter etc*
Those too dim to understand the difference between throwaway comments on a "discrete" (chortle) blog and leafleting/voter drives as well as GOTV on the ground are almost as funny as those who seem to have forgotten that AV was destroyed mainly because of Clegg's toxicity. (despite Yes to AV being well ahead in some polling before the vote) Well it's not just Clegg supporting No to independence, it's Cameron, Osbrowne and little Ed to name just a few more of their 'assets'.
I've also yet to see anyone on here explain precisely why Gordon Brown hasn't yet stepped down despite his very telling avoidance of the commons. When they work that out their prognostications on scottish politics might be worth taking more seriously but I see absolutely no sign of even that yet.
Yes2AV lost largely because it refused to engage with anyone to the right of Vince Cable, despite there being a few Tories inclined to support it and with UKIP very much potentially onside.
The amount of tories who supported AV was small indeed while UKIP support was way, way below where it is now. Cameron wishes UKIP support was currently as low as it was then though he seems to have it covered now with the 'brilliant' master strategies of Osbrowne and Crosby. LOL
What is accurate is that Clegg and scottish lib dems didn't seem remotely interested in reaching out to the two big blocks of votes that would have helped immensely which was SLAB and SNP voters in scotland. Not that Clegg himself could personally reach out since there was a very good reason he was featured so heavily in the No to AV campaign. That lib dem isolation over Yes to AV was felt on the ground by those in the SNP and SLAB who still supported Yes. They were hardly going to pull out all the stops to campaign hard for a lib dem leader supporting Yes who seemed uninterested in cross party support and who had just made the lib dems toxic in scotland thanks to the Con Dem coalition.
No adopted a far more pragmatic - and effective - approach, accepting support wherever it came from. See any parallels to Scotland?
If you think the No campaign being prominently supported by tories like Cameron and Osbrowne and lib dems like Clegg and Carmichael is pragmatic and effective then that is entirely up to you. Having helped out on the ground campaign I beg to differ and I also know that some of the recent polling on the salience of things like the EU and currency is accurate. (despite the usual pointless scaremongering about them on PB)
As for cross party support on the ground, Denis Canavan is working away with meetings across scotland face to face with voters directly appealing to disaffected SLAB voters. Patrick Harvie is also doing a good job appealing to former Lib Dems.
Unlike with Clegg and AV there is a very clear strategy in place for the ground campaign as well as for the most important debates to come. That strategy was highlighted during the SNP conference but of course wasn't noticed on here.
'UK taxpayer, as any fule kno, not 'English' taxpayer.
Confusing England and the UK is one of the problems that bedevils discussion of the indy issue, to put it mildly.
And on that basis, the Scots would expect to take a population share (or similar) of the UK Gmt holding of shares in RBS (including Nat West), etc., as part of the sensible assets and debt divvy up. That happens to be about the same proportion as their activity. So I can't understand what the problem is.
Sorry Carnyx: I read your post but I had to read it twice to engage my few rusting brain-cells.
RBS/Lloyds will be owned by an - effective - English shareholder. Similar to the East Kilbride monstrosity (Gormless McBruin vote-system) there is no market reason why England should fund foreign out-sourced stables in Scotland if-and-only-if they can be better resourced elsewhere.
With Scotland outwith of the Westminster calculus then how does an independent nation expect the English system to help them? Royal-Mail, Centrica and National-Grid are external entities: National-Rail will no longer need all that infrastructure to Faslane and Rosyth. Ergo: No need for the English to pay for HS2 past Carlisle or Newcastle....
... sorry, forgot: and likewise, post indy, the Scots would take their share of regulating and underwriting banks' activity in their territory, just as the US did it for the bits of RBS etc in the US, as I understand it. So I don't understand the argument here.
Well if you ever came to Edinburgh and went to South Gyle, or tried to cross the Forth Road Bridge at rush hour you would see the problem.
Put very simply those selling financial products in the UK have to comply with UK based regulators. We may well think they turned out to be as much use as chocolate tea pots in 2007 but they are in fact regarded as at least the second most sophisticated regulatory system in the world reflecting the markets they have to regulate. Approval by the UK regulatory authorities make approval to trade anywhere else in the world straightforward. Other countries also know that, unlike Iceland, Cyprus, Greece etc, the UK has the wherewithall to stand behind its financial institutions making it safe for other countries to allow them to trade on their territory.
Because this is a unitary authority it has not mattered until now that 2 of our largest banks, including what was for a while the world's largest bank, are based in Edinburgh. Scotland gets a ride on this system. If, however, Scotland goes independent then those very large banks and other major financial institutions such as Standard Life, Alliance Trust and others face being backed by a country that does not even have its own currency and limited capacity to borrow. They simply could not trade on their current basis in such a scenario. They also face the problem of having to comply with different regulatory arrangements north and south of the border with the inevitable costs and hassle this involves in terms of getting authorisations etc. Some may well wonder if the Scottish market is simply worth it given its size.
Before the crash RBS was the single largest taxpayer in the UK. One day it may be a major tax payer again. But not in Scotland. Ditto Lloyds. These institutions and the thousands of head office jobs that Scotland and Edinburgh's large number of private schools enjoy would head south. This would have a significant effect on the tax base and the budget of the Scottish government.
... sorry, forgot: and likewise, post indy, the Scots would take their share of regulating and underwriting banks' activity in their territory, just as the US did it for the bits of RBS etc in the US, as I understand it. So I don't understand the argument here.
Every bank has a lead regulator and a lender of last resort, depending on the location of the head office. So although NatWest would be regulated by rUK and Citizens by the US, ultimately the Edinburgh regulator would be in charge. The problem is that, say RBS went as badly wrong as it did over the last few years, it might well bankrupt the Scottish government - see Ireland as an example. Consequently the markets may price more risk into RBS borrowing and charge them more and hence it would be cheaper for RBS to move its group HQ to London.
From recollection there are about 3,000 well paid jobs in RBS HQ and so withdrawal would have a significant impact on the Edinburgh property market, service economy and tax pool
I've met Clegg and he's without doubt one of the sharpest minds around. I also happen to know a very labour leaning civil servant who works at the cabinet office who tells me that he and Alexander work tirelessly to keep the Tories in check. She also says they're really genuine people to boot. You might not like his policies but do not think he's vacuous or shallow, he's really not.
Any comments or inside knowledge, folks? If it were about a politician I don't like, I'd swiftly dismiss it as partisan cheerleading, but because I'm on Clegg and Alexander's side I want it to be true...
Well if you ever came to Edinburgh and went to South Gyle, or tried to cross the Forth Road Bridge at rush hour you would see the problem.
---- Before the crash RBS was the single largest taxpayer in the UK. One day it may be a major tax payer again. But not in Scotland. Ditto Lloyds. These institutions and the thousands of head office jobs that Scotland and Edinburgh's large number of private schools enjoy would head south. This would have a significant effect on the tax base and the budget of the Scottish government.
That is the issue.
Thank you. Food for thought (and yes I do know the Edinburgh bypass). But of course after indy the fact that RBS is the largest taxpayer in the UK is no longer a meaningful concept. Undoubtedly its activities and the tax take would be much smaller in an indy Scotland - but how much smaller? I also note that most of the tax base in question is in any case UK tax with no relation to what the Scottish budget gets at the moment. But yes, this is something to watch.
The other factor that I am not clear about is what happens to the financial sector if Scotland remains in the EU (ignoring the scare stories for the moment) but EWNI leaves - I can understand the implications for trade and industry well enough, but for finance?
who tells me that he and Alexander work tirelessly to keep the Tories in check. She also says they're really genuine people to boot. You might not like his policies but do not think he's vacuous or shallow, he's really not.
Any comments or inside knowledge, folks?
Danny Alexander: The Tories couldn't have done it without us
It has been a long, hard road. Sacrifices have been made and pain has been felt. But now the first signs of recovery are glimmering on the horizon. Better days lie ahead.
... sorry, forgot: and likewise, post indy, the Scots would take their share of regulating and underwriting banks' activity in their territory, just as the US did it for the bits of RBS etc in the US, as I understand it. So I don't understand the argument here.
They also face the problem of having to comply with different regulatory arrangements north and south of the border
I thought banking regulation was one of the powers that had been passed to the EU.
Scottish bank-notes are supported by deposits held by Clydesdale, Lloyds and RBS at the Bank of England. Those funds do not belong to any government outwith a congruent share-holding,
Back-of-a-match-book calculation is that the English tax-payer underwrites half of all Scottish bank-notes. Post independence the two nations may have diverging economic requirements...
...Meanwhile the rUK is going to be playing one role in one relationship and another role in another: They want to be able to sell to EU consumers while abiding by as little regulation as possible to attract all the business from other member states, but they won't want to let Scotland do to them what they're doing to the rest of the EU.
Ermm...,
Gaijin: No klomplend.
Scotland's Edinborough's financial companies are owned - in all extent - by the English tax-payer. The SNats want the English tax-payer to underwrite any losses these Edinborough excuses make through financial mismanagement, incompetence or ignorance.
Come 'independence' why should the English tax-payer fund foreign governments (directly or otherwise)? Correlation =/= causation: Just because nationalists in Sweden and Switzerland got wealthy in 1939-1945 does not mean that their Scots' counter-parts will not have that ambition....
...the Scots would expect to take a population share (or similar) of the UK Gmt holding of shares in RBS (including Nat West), etc., as part of the sensible assets and debt divvy up. That happens to be about the same proportion as their activity. So I can't understand what the problem is.
Neither the problem (nor the solution) is the size of each government's shareholding in the intervened banking groups.
First of all it is likely that the UK government will have sold its bank shareholdings before Scotland is due to become independent. The Lloyds shares are likely to have been sold in toto by mid 2015 and most of the RBS Group should be off the government's books by March 2016.
But the real issue is not shareholding but the size of the banking groups's balance sheets, and the willingness and ability of the country in which the banks are registered to act as 'guarantor of last resort'.
The size of the Royal Bank of Scotland's balance sheet, for example, far exceeds Scotland's GNP and, at the time of the financial crisis, its net lending was increasing far faster than national GDP.
The problem of such an imbalance was shown in Ireland when government guarantees of its failing banks were unable to satisfy markets due to losses and ongoing risks exceeding the capacity of the country to cover. Even with the capacity of the UK to support RBS and Lloyds, the two groups are classified internationally as "systemically important banks" whose stability is critical to the global financial system. Securing their future stability will therefore require multi-national measures in addition to the regulation of the country of incorporation.
Independence would almost certainly require the divestment by the two UK groups of the retail banking operations and branch networks of the Bank of Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland. Whereas Edinburgh's strength in asset management may be sustainable its role in investment banking and other risky capital markets operations would likely be severely curtailed in a breaking up of the banking groups.
There would be advantages and disadvantages of such restructuring. Scotland would have a safer and more stable banking sector focussed primarily on meeting the needs of its own retail and corporate customer base. It would however lose its former seat at the casino table of global investment banking and even its retail and corporate banking operations would be constrained in growth due to the geo-demographic limits of its national market.
I've met Clegg and he's without doubt one of the sharpest minds around. I also happen to know a very labour leaning civil servant who works at the cabinet office who tells me that he and Alexander work tirelessly to keep the Tories in check. She also says they're really genuine people to boot. You might not like his policies but do not think he's vacuous or shallow, he's really not.
Any comments or inside knowledge, folks? If it were about a politician I don't like, I'd swiftly dismiss it as partisan cheerleading, but because I'm on Clegg and Alexander's side I want it to be true...
I read the article and just scanned it again. There's no mention of that quote of yours.
Were you referring to the anonymous comments underneath? I'd hardly take those as gospel.
... sorry, forgot: and likewise, post indy, the Scots would take their share of regulating and underwriting banks' activity in their territory, just as the US did it for the bits of RBS etc in the US, as I understand it. So I don't understand the argument here.
They also face the problem of having to comply with different regulatory arrangements north and south of the border
I thought banking regulation was one of the powers that had been passed to the EU.
No, there is a greater level of integration in the EZ for at least the larger banks and there are regulations which are relevant for the single market that of course apply but the regulation of UK institutions is done by the UK.
The other factor that I am not clear about is what happens to the financial sector if Scotland remains in the EU (ignoring the scare stories for the moment) but EWNI leaves - I can understand the implications for trade and industry well enough, but for finance?
Goodness knows. What we can be confident of is that by far the largest single market for Scottish institutions (as now) will be rUK.
The relevance of head offices, apart from jobs, is that is where the company is based for tax purposes so if RBS was making money off its world wide operations it would in theory pay tax on that money in Edinburgh. So put all the problems to one side, in theory the tax payable on the profits of Natwest would have come to Scotland. Never going to happen.
I've met Clegg and he's without doubt one of the sharpest minds around. I also happen to know a very labour leaning civil servant who works at the cabinet office who tells me that he and Alexander work tirelessly to keep the Tories in check. She also says they're really genuine people to boot. You might not like his policies but do not think he's vacuous or shallow, he's really not.
Any comments or inside knowledge, folks? If it were about a politician I don't like, I'd swiftly dismiss it as partisan cheerleading, but because I'm on Clegg and Alexander's side I want it to be true...
I read the article and just scanned it again. There's no mention of that quote of yours.
Were you referring to the anonymous comments underneath? I'd hardly take those as gospel.
'UK taxpayer, as any fule kno, not 'English' taxpayer.
Confusing England and the UK is one of the problems that bedevils discussion of the indy issue, to put it mildly.
And on that basis, the Scots would expect to take a population share (or similar) of the UK Gmt holding of shares in RBS (including Nat West), etc., as part of the sensible assets and debt divvy up. That happens to be about the same proportion as their activity. So I can't understand what the problem is.
Sorry Carnyx: I read your post but I had to read it twice to engage my few rusting brain-cells.
RBS/Lloyds will be owned by an - effective - English shareholder. Similar to the East Kilbride monstrosity (Gormless McBruin vote-system) there is no market reason why England should fund foreign out-sourced stables in Scotland if-and-only-if they can be better resourced elsewhere.
With Scotland outwith of the Westminster calculus then how does an independent nation expect the English system to help them? Royal-Mail, Centrica and National-Grid are external entities: National-Rail will no longer need all that infrastructure to Faslane and Rosyth. Ergo: No need for the English to pay for HS2 past Carlisle or Newcastle....
Thank you. I really don't think there is any expectation by the SNP or anyone else that the English should help in a one sided manner - the emphasis is on independence and self-reliance - but also cooperation.
I had not thought about National Rail, so that/s an interesting point. But being a UK Gmt owned body, the real estate including track would presumably be split on a geographical basis anyway. And nobody would expect an independent EWNI to build track north of Gretna or Lamberton Toll.
Perhaps HS2 is not the best argument to adduce here. There are no current plans at all to extend it beyond Preston/Leeds etc. (and that is on the current thinking for a Phase 2 long, long in the future - to open in 2033). So what you describe would be a considerable improvement on that. Meanwhile, the Scots taxpayers are already expected to pay their share for HS2 Phase 1 from Birmingham to London, as this is, as far as I am aware, currently excluded from the Barnett consequentials (like, e.g. the replacement of London's Bazalgette sewers). This seems illogical, to put it mildly, given that rail infrastructure is devolved to Scotland at present (and indeed the Scottish Government is already discussing how best to implement HS within Scotland). So the Scottish taxpayer would be in the absurd position of paying twice over for HS2, at least on the face of it. It might also have been more convincing as a grand project to tie Great Britain together, in the model of the US, Canada and Bismarckian Germany, if it did not stop in a dead end at Euston without bothering to continue on (at least on some plans) to e.g. HS1 to the Channel Tunnel (I do know about the spur line), or on to the south and southwest of England who are also very badly done by. One doesn't have to have an opinion pro or anti indy to realise how this has played politically beyond the Chilterns.
I've met Clegg and he's without doubt one of the sharpest minds around. I also happen to know a very labour leaning civil servant who works at the cabinet office who tells me that he and Alexander work tirelessly to keep the Tories in check. She also says they're really genuine people to boot. You might not like his policies but do not think he's vacuous or shallow, he's really not.
Any comments or inside knowledge, folks? If it were about a politician I don't like, I'd swiftly dismiss it as partisan cheerleading, but because I'm on Clegg and Alexander's side I want it to be true...
I read the article and just scanned it again. There's no mention of that quote of yours.
Were you referring to the anonymous comments underneath? I'd hardly take those as gospel.
Clegg made sure David Laws was in charge of the lib dems 2015 election manifesto. Highly amusing though that is (and no doubt also done to try and shore up Clegg personally as leader) it doesn't exactly indicate a truly massive lurch to complete differentiation is on the cards. Nor would it be believed by very many of the public. It's far too late for that now, particularly with Clegg as leader.
This really sums up the small-minded SNP economic model:
The focus on Sir Fred is itself a distortion. The main cause of RBS's failure was its policy of aggressive balance-sheet management. The bank entered the crisis with a core capital ratio of some 4%, about what is now seen as permissible after a crisis but not before. High leverage was a long-standing strategy. In the first half of the 1980s both RBS and Bank of Scotland (the predecessor of HBOS) were almost bought by English banks. Both responded by hiring entrepreneurial managers and expanding in England and abroad. With a tiny home market, says a former executive, they had to “stretch every pound” of capital and run with fewer deposits than was comfortable. Even then both banks remained takeover candidates. Salvation came in 1999, when both bid for NatWest, a much bigger English lender. RBS won. As consolation Bank of Scotland combined with Halifax, another English bank, to become HBOS.
Especially as we keep being told on here by the SNP contingent how badly Labour behaves in Scotland.
Actually it was the scottish tory surgers who seemed most upset at SLAB recently by screaming about Falkirk at every opportunity. This despite them not really understanding that any more than they understand why Brown hasn't stepped down, even though the amusing bleating about Brown never ceases.
Next thing you know they'll be taking the partisan articles by the Hootsman's former political editor as gospel.
Before questioning London funding could people do some research: I am sure Junior is a better source then me!
Local-taxes in Lewisham include GLA funding for any travel/future-sewer/rail infrastructure. What pishes us folk off is the Barnett kick-back that we also have to fund.*
That said; nice to have an open conversation about the incompetence of Wee-Eck and his followers....
Especially as we keep being told on here by the SNP contingent how badly Labour behaves in Scotland.
Actually it was the scottish tory surgers who seemed most upset at SLAB recently by screaming about Falkirk at every opportunity. This despite them not really understanding that any more than they understand why Brown hasn't stepped down, even though the amusing bleating about Brown never ceases.
Next thing you know they'll be taking the partisan articles by the Hootsman's former political editor as gospel.
LOL
Most pleased to see you alive and kicking, Pork.
My fears were that you had been sent to China after being forced to bottle your *tears of laughter*.
You are offering a Wee-Timmy bet. Offer odds; make it a charity bet; call me back when you have a reasonable offer....
You can take up RCS1000 offer of 5-1 if you like. If Evens offered is a bad price then by definition something is unlikely to happen. Like I said Rcs has made an offer I can't match so go ahead and take his 5-1. It is probably fair.
That really sums up the small-minded fluffycolinhunt economic model:
What does the SNP expect to happen to RBS? Would it buy the rest of the UK out of its share? The UK government currently owns 70% of RBS. If it is divided on population basis, that means that the majority of the bank would be owned by rUK. And yet it would be headquartered in a foreign country! I can't imagine that is a scenario that would last very long.
Perhaps the nationalists would quite like to be rid of RBS and this would be a convenient way out?
Before questioning London funding could people do some research: I am sure Junior is a better source then me!
Local-taxes in Lewisham include GLA funding for any travel/future-sewer/rail infrastructure. What pishes us folk off is the Barnett kick-back that we also have to fund.*
That said; nice to have an open conversation about the incompetence of Wee-Eck and his followers....
* Edinborough trams.... :slap-head:
:seriously-sniggering:
Thank you. Overall data certainly don't suggest that the Scots are being subsidised by the (undoubtedly long-suffering) Lewisham folk - possibly other parts of the UK, but not Scotland.
I'm a little surprised you adduce the Edinburgh trams, much as I agree that they are a disgrace (even allowing for the piling on of a lot of basic infrastructure improvement to the bill while the diversions to cabling etc. were done). They were forced on the then minority SNP Government by a Labour-LD coalition as I well recall, and the critical early stages were then bungled by the Labour-LD coalition then running Edinburgh. The Tories and Greens also voted for the trams in the Parliament, I believe. The SNP intent with the money had been inter aliis to dual the A9, the main road through the Highlands and a dangerous one. They get blamed for not dualling it s well ...
Especially as we keep being told on here by the SNP contingent how badly Labour behaves in Scotland.
Actually it was the scottish tory surgers who seemed most upset at SLAB recently by screaming about Falkirk at every opportunity. This despite them not really understanding that any more than they understand why Brown hasn't stepped down, even though the amusing bleating about Brown never ceases.
Next thing you know they'll be taking the partisan articles by the Hootsman's former political editor as gospel.
LOL
Indeed. The end of the endless Falkirk spamming by the very odd PB McTories should be welcomed by posters of all stripes. Some of them are now claiming they never said it would affect Lab VI. Only on PB.
Especially as we keep being told on here by the SNP contingent how badly Labour behaves in Scotland.
Actually it was the scottish tory surgers who seemed most upset at SLAB recently by screaming about Falkirk at every opportunity. This despite them not really understanding that any more than they understand why Brown hasn't stepped down, even though the amusing bleating about Brown never ceases.
Next thing you know they'll be taking the partisan articles by the Hootsman's former political editor as gospel.
LOL
Most pleased to see you alive and kicking, Pork.
My fears were that you had been sent to China after being forced to bottle your *tears of laughter*.
Whereas I was in no doubt that you would continue posting away despite Lansley still not being made PM, Seth O Logue.
Not to worry. To save you and so many other PB tories valuable time here's a swift reminder of where things stand and which issue is going to dominate for the next six months or so.
I certainly find the standard of spelling round here disappointing and am in in full opposition to such horrors. Down to 13 years of New Labour education policy, I'm sure.
Before questioning London funding could people do some research: I am sure Junior is a better source then me!
Local-taxes in Lewisham include GLA funding for any travel/future-sewer/rail infrastructure. What pishes us folk off is the Barnett kick-back that we also have to fund.*
That said; nice to have an open conversation about the incompetence of Wee-Eck and his followers....
* Edinborough trams.... :slap-head:
:seriously-sniggering:
Thank you. Overall data certainly don't suggest that the Scots are being subsidised by the (undoubtedly long-suffering) Lewisham folk - possibly other parts of the UK, but not Scotland.
I've met Clegg and he's without doubt one of the sharpest minds around. I also happen to know a very labour leaning civil servant who works at the cabinet office who tells me that he and Alexander work tirelessly to keep the Tories in check. She also says they're really genuine people to boot. You might not like his policies but do not think he's vacuous or shallow, he's really not.
Any comments or inside knowledge, folks? If it were about a politician I don't like, I'd swiftly dismiss it as partisan cheerleading, but because I'm on Clegg and Alexander's side I want it to be true...
I read the article and just scanned it again. There's no mention of that quote of yours.
Were you referring to the anonymous comments underneath? I'd hardly take those as gospel. I was indeed referring to one of the 'anonymous comments underneath'; that's why my second link was to one of the comments... And, yes, of course we shouldn't take those as gospel! That's why I was asking if anyone had insider knowledge that might corroborate (or not) the impression that comment gave of Clegg and Alexander. I'm interested in glimpses into the more private, behind the scenes character of people in the public eye, that's all.
I've met Clegg and he's without doubt one of the sharpest minds around. I also happen to know a very labour leaning civil servant who works at the cabinet office who tells me that he and Alexander work tirelessly to keep the Tories in check. She also says they're really genuine people to boot. You might not like his policies but do not think he's vacuous or shallow, he's really not.
Any comments or inside knowledge, folks? If it were about a politician I don't like, I'd swiftly dismiss it as partisan cheerleading, but because I'm on Clegg and Alexander's side I want it to be true...
Really? You'd want it to be true?
Multiple choice question. Who got the most votes in the last election: 1. The Conservatives 2. The LibDems 3. The "very Labour leaning civil servant"
Now my best guess, and it's only a guess mind you, is that the LD vote combined with the Very Labour Leaning Civil Servant Party didn't hit the 10.7 million that the Tories reached.
So where is their mandate and their right to "work tirelessly to keep the Tories in check", Kevin?
Especially as we keep being told on here by the SNP contingent how badly Labour behaves in Scotland.
Actually it was the scottish tory surgers who seemed most upset at SLAB recently by screaming about Falkirk at every opportunity. This despite them not really understanding that any more than they understand why Brown hasn't stepped down, even though the amusing bleating about Brown never ceases.
Next thing you know they'll be taking the partisan articles by the Hootsman's former political editor as gospel.
LOL
Indeed. The end of the endless Falkirk spamming by the very odd PB McTories should be welcomed by posters of all stripes. Some of them are now claiming they never said it would affect Lab VI. Only on PB.
Especially "middle income' (sic) earning households on 70k who think the poor should subsidise their child credit. Labour voters, no doubt.
Before questioning London funding could people do some research: I am sure Junior is a better source then me!
Local-taxes in Lewisham include GLA funding for any travel/future-sewer/rail infrastructure. What pishes us folk off is the Barnett kick-back that we also have to fund.*
That said; nice to have an open conversation about the incompetence of Wee-Eck and his followers....
* Edinborough trams.... :slap-head:
:seriously-sniggering:
Thank you. Overall data certainly don't suggest that the Scots are being subsidised by the (undoubtedly long-suffering) Lewisham folk - possibly other parts of the UK, but not Scotland.
Before questioning London funding could people do some research: I am sure Junior is a better source then me!
Local-taxes in Lewisham include GLA funding for any travel/future-sewer/rail infrastructure. What pishes us folk off is the Barnett kick-back that we also have to fund.*
That said; nice to have an open conversation about the incompetence of Wee-Eck and his followers....
* Edinborough trams.... :slap-head:
:seriously-sniggering:
Thank you. Overall data certainly don't suggest that the Scots are being subsidised by the (undoubtedly long-suffering) Lewisham folk - possibly other parts of the UK, but not Scotland.
Before questioning London funding could people do some research: I am sure Junior is a better source then me!
Local-taxes in Lewisham include GLA funding for any travel/future-sewer/rail infrastructure. What pishes us folk off is the Barnett kick-back that we also have to fund.*
That said; nice to have an open conversation about the incompetence of Wee-Eck and his followers....
* Edinborough trams.... :slap-head:
:seriously-sniggering:
Thank you. Overall data certainly don't suggest that the Scots are being subsidised by the (undoubtedly long-suffering) Lewisham folk - possibly other parts of the UK, but not Scotland.
I've met Clegg and he's without doubt one of the sharpest minds around. I also happen to know a very labour leaning civil servant who works at the cabinet office who tells me that he and Alexander work tirelessly to keep the Tories in check. She also says they're really genuine people to boot. You might not like his policies but do not think he's vacuous or shallow, he's really not.
Any comments or inside knowledge, folks? If it were about a politician I don't like, I'd swiftly dismiss it as partisan cheerleading, but because I'm on Clegg and Alexander's side I want it to be true...
Really? You'd want it to be true?
Multiple choice question. Who got the most votes in the last election: 1. The Conservatives 2. The LibDems 3. The "very Labour leaning civil servant"
Now my best guess, and it's only a guess mind you, is that the LD vote combined with the Very Labour Leaning Civil Servant Party didn't hit the 10.7 million that the Tories reached.
So where is their mandate and their right to "work tirelessly to keep the Tories in check", Kevin?
Cammie's failure to win a majority obviously. Cameron couldn't even manage that against the hopeless Brown and had to go running to Clegg to save him by forming the coalition. The truth is without lib dem votes in the commons the tories can do nothing so both sides either agree or policy goes the way of boundary changes and Lords reform.
The reason differentiation won't work has nothing to do with upset tories who still don't realise that Cameron didn't win a majority. It won't work because the public are well aware Clegg happily signed up to a tory lib dem coalition in 2010. So it looks just a bit much for either party to complain and posture about it just before the next election. It's not credible.
Before questioning London funding could people do some research: I am sure Junior is a better source then me!
Local-taxes in Lewisham include GLA funding for any travel/future-sewer/rail infrastructure. What pishes us folk off is the Barnett kick-back that we also have to fund.*
That said; nice to have an open conversation about the incompetence of Wee-Eck and his followers....
* Edinborough trams.... :slap-head:
:seriously-sniggering:
Thank you. Overall data certainly don't suggest that the Scots are being subsidised by the (undoubtedly long-suffering) Lewisham folk - possibly other parts of the UK, but not Scotland.
Now my best guess, and it's only a guess mind you, is that the LD vote combined with the Very Labour Leaning Civil Servant Party didn't hit the 10.7 million that the Tories reached.
So where is their mandate and their right to "work tirelessly to keep the Tories in check", Kevin?
Wow, easy tiger... They have a mandate because, under our system of government, they're in power alongside the Conservatives. And I'd be glad if the LDs are indeed working tirelessly to keep the Tories in check because I think that's good for the country, on the whole.
Having said that, if you gave me a straight choice of Tory majority or Labour majority at the next GE, I'd choose the former without hesitation. I've got real worries that the UK will get into major economic trouble pretty swiftly if Miliband becomes PM.
The one thing that really shocked me today was reading this.
"This isn’t the first time that Mandela has been painted a womanising wife-beater: in 2010, David James Smith wrote a biography called Young Mandela. He recounts how Evelyn claimed he beat and throttled her, and even threatened to murder her with an axe."
" the filmmakers felt it important to show their subject as he was. Drafts of the film were shown to members of Mandela’s circle, and approved, though one, Ahmed Kathrada, who spent 26 years in prison with Mandela, did object to portions of script showing Mandela’s roving eye and flying fists. But Mandela, according to Nicholson, ‘trusted’ the director to get it right.
I've met Clegg and he's without doubt one of the sharpest minds around. I also happen to know a very labour leaning civil servant who works at the cabinet office who tells me that he and Alexander work tirelessly to keep the Tories in check. She also says they're really genuine people to boot. You might not like his policies but do not think he's vacuous or shallow, he's really not.
Any comments or inside knowledge, folks? If it were about a politician I don't like, I'd swiftly dismiss it as partisan cheerleading, but because I'm on Clegg and Alexander's side I want it to be true...
Really? You'd want it to be true?
Multiple choice question. Who got the most votes in the last election: 1. The Conservatives 2. The LibDems 3. The "very Labour leaning civil servant"
Now my best guess, and it's only a guess mind you, is that the LD vote combined with the Very Labour Leaning Civil Servant Party didn't hit the 10.7 million that the Tories reached.
So where is their mandate and their right to "work tirelessly to keep the Tories in check", Kevin?
Cammie's failure to win a majority obviously. Cameron couldn't even manage that against the hopeless Brown and had to go running to Clegg to save him by forming the coalition. The truth is without lib dem votes in the commons the tories can do nothing so both sides either agree or policy goes the way of boundary changes and Lords reform.
The reason differentiation won't work has nothing to do with upset tories who still don't realise that Cameron didn't win a majority. It won't work because the public are well aware Clegg happily signed up to a tory lib dem coalition in 2010. So it looks just a bit much for either party to complain and posture about it just before the next election. It's not credible.
I don't think Clegg "happily" signed up top a coalition with the baby-eaters.
Especially as we keep being told on here by the SNP contingent how badly Labour behaves in Scotland.
Actually it was the scottish tory surgers who seemed most upset at SLAB recently by screaming about Falkirk at every opportunity. This despite them not really understanding that any more than they understand why Brown hasn't stepped down, even though the amusing bleating about Brown never ceases.
Next thing you know they'll be taking the partisan articles by the Hootsman's former political editor as gospel.
LOL
Indeed. The end of the endless Falkirk spamming by the very odd PB McTories should be welcomed by posters of all stripes. Some of them are now claiming they never said it would affect Lab VI. Only on PB.
Especially "middle income' (sic) earning households on 70k who think the poor should subsidise their child credit. Labour voters, no doubt.
I don't think Clegg "happily" signed up top a coalition with the baby-eaters.
If we're just going by demeanours you may be right; Clegg's looked miserable for the last 3 years. Otoh, by the same (admittedly dubious) metric Danny Alexander has looked like a pig in the proverbial.
Especially as we keep being told on here by the SNP contingent how badly Labour behaves in Scotland.
Actually it was the scottish tory surgers who seemed most upset at SLAB recently by screaming about Falkirk at every opportunity. This despite them not really understanding that any more than they understand why Brown hasn't stepped down, even though the amusing bleating about Brown never ceases.
Next thing you know they'll be taking the partisan articles by the Hootsman's former political editor as gospel.
LOL
Indeed. The end of the endless Falkirk spamming by the very odd PB McTories should be welcomed by posters of all stripes. Some of them are now claiming they never said it would affect Lab VI. Only on PB.
Especially "middle income' (sic) earning households on 70k who think the poor should subsidise their child credit. Labour voters, no doubt.
...another economics remedial who fails to grasp that my family are massive net contributors. Pointless discussing it with you really.
I've never suggested that Scotland is a subsidy junkie, but what happens to RBS in an independent Scotland. Presumably there are those like Tommy Sheridan who would happily be rid of it. One thing we can be sure of, if it is majority owned by rUK government the headquarters won't stay in Edinburgh five minutes.
I tried and failed to post this a minute ago so I'll apologise in advance if this is duplicated.
Now my best guess, and it's only a guess mind you, is that the LD vote combined with the Very Labour Leaning Civil Servant Party didn't hit the 10.7 million that the Tories reached.
So where is their mandate and their right to "work tirelessly to keep the Tories in check", Kevin?
Wow, easy tiger... They have a mandate because, under our system of government, they're in power alongside the Conservatives. And I'd be glad if the LDs are indeed working tirelessly to keep the Tories in check because I think that's good for the country, on the whole.
Having said that, if you gave me a straight choice of Tory majority or Labour majority at the next GE, I'd choose the former without hesitation. I've got real worries that the UK will get into major economic trouble pretty swiftly if Miliband becomes PM.
After the "wow, easy tiger" I did a quick re-read of my post ... sorry if I came across confrontationally. That wasn't my intention.
You've defended the actions of the LD and that I actually fully support. The junior partner isn't the unthinking slave and they have a mandate to nudge behind the scenes in their preferred direction of travel.
But that doesn't (and you don't) address my main concern and that's our "very Labour leaning civil servant" thinking that he has an active and colluding role to play in your LD policy tweaking sessions. He is there to impartially follow instructions from his elected political masters. Nobody should know his politics, let alone him wear them as a badge of honour.
Imagine the speed that tickets would be sold on your Outrage Bus if a "very UKIP leaning civil servant" was actively manipulating policy in a LD department? I suspect that you are happy with the situation when it works to your favour but would be aghast if the roles were reversed.
I don't think Clegg "happily" signed up top a coalition with the baby-eaters.
If we're just going by demeanours you may be right; Clegg's looked miserable for the last 3 years. Otoh, by the same (admittedly dubious) metric Danny Alexander has looked like a pig in the proverbial.
I don't think Clegg "happily" signed up top a coalition with the baby-eaters.
If we're just going by demeanours you may be right; Clegg's looked miserable for the last 3 years. Otoh, by the same (admittedly dubious) metric Danny Alexander has looked like a pig in the proverbial.
In other words a scottish tory surger and notorious anti-tipster thinks little Danny is doing well. That bodes well for him.
Comments
*tears of laughter etc*
Those too dim to understand the difference between throwaway comments on a "discrete" (chortle) blog and leafleting/voter drives as well as GOTV on the ground are almost as funny as those who seem to have forgotten that AV was destroyed mainly because of Clegg's toxicity. (despite Yes to AV being well ahead in some polling before the vote) Well it's not just Clegg supporting No to independence, it's Cameron, Osbrowne and little Ed to name just a few more of their 'assets'.
I've also yet to see anyone on here explain precisely why Gordon Brown hasn't yet stepped down despite his very telling avoidance of the commons. When they work that out their prognostications on scottish politics might be worth taking more seriously but I see absolutely no sign of even that yet.
For Scotland this is clearly much, much more important than it is for rUK. We would be a branch economy in an independent country. Sheer size alone mean that rUK would be at least 10x as important market for Scotland as Scotland would be for rUK.
At the moment it seems likely to me that Scotland would run a surplus with rUK based on oil, food and beverages and financial services. Whether we would run a surplus overall is harder to say. Scottish GDP is broadly similar to the UK average. This would suggest that we consume as much as we produce, possibly a little more as the rUK does. Growth of exports in recent times has been in the export of business services and cars, in neither of which Scotland is a serious player.
Looking ahead the position becomes more problematic. A collapse in the Scottish financial services industry simply seems inevitable if we, as proposed, create our own regulator and become a foreign provider of services for the very large market within the UK. Businesses such as our large banks and Standard Life will move south to be regulated by rUK institutions and jobs will go with them. It really is silly to pretend otherwise.
Oil production has been falling very sharply in recent years. In fact this is one of the major reasons there has not been more improvement in UK exports and indeed growth in the 2010-2012 period. There is a chance that this will be stabilised for a while but the marginal cost of new production is much higher and there will be less profit to tax in the future.
Where countries have broken up internationally the amount of intra country trade has fallen very sharply. As I say this is a much bigger problem for Scotland than rUK. It is possible Scotland will find alternative markets for its products. It is probable we will have some years in which to adapt before there is any sort of crisis. It is possible that we may become an energy exporter to rUK for renewables although the wastage in transportation of that energy is an issue.
All of this assumes no major dislocation such as Scotland not being in the EU from day 1, rUK not leaving the EU, no immediate problems in setting a credible budget and no major impact on the balance of trade from the inevitable cuts in public spending an independent Scotland would have to introduce.
I have experience in global-logistics: The number of times I am asked why someplace outwith Oslo or Bern cannot have a pickup would take a life-time to explain. Unless, that is, the service is too expensive to support!
Not my decision; if the delivery/pick-up is not supported by the business-model well..., it is not sustainable.
Royal-Mail, Centrica and National-Grid are other exemplars: No enriched Scotsman would expect 'impoverished' England to be taxed in order to sustain Scots' prices at Uk levels, no? Ill-thought plans by a poor political structure: Scots' are free to determine their own outcome; they cannot dictate to England (nor conflate progressive politics with a refusal to fund their 'Celtic cousins'.
* Who said anything was accredited to MacMillan? Another Sunil-on-Sunday Daily Short....
E.T.A.: Running Firefox 5 sadly! Crappy version but suitable for RSA systems....
Hardly, I am merely referring to the bottom one or two classes. Everybody, including the thickies themselves already know who they are.
There are more than enough people capable of becoming teachers in this country already. They clearly don't need to already have a degree or to have gone to teacher training indoctrination.
Wrong again. Its not about teachers stretching their own ability, its about the pupils getting a good education. Notice the difference, its results orientated. First class honours degrees are not needed for most teachers, I'm so glad you actually agree with me here. So lets have grammer schools where teachers with Firsts can teach properly and not waste their degree.
Look everybody, David_Herdson prefers style over substance.
Oh gawd....
It seems a truism to suggest that the "dividing line" should be porous. There will be errors both ways - those just below the dividing line who will succeed in a Grammar School environment, and those above it who might not. In addition, children's abilities will change between the ages of 11 and 16. By teaching both streams in the same school, you allow corrections to be made and give everyone greater opportunity. No, teachers have free will. They will choose to apply for schools where they get the opportunity to teach A Level. The best teachers are enthusiasts for their subject.
Meanwhile the rUK is going to be playing one role in one relationship and another role in another: They want to be able to sell to EU consumers while abiding by as little regulation as possible to attract all the business from other member states, but they won't want to let Scotland do to them what they're doing to the rest of the EU.
The proposals to limit child benefit to the first two children looks likely to raise some political hackles.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523819/No-10s-plan-cap-benefit-children-New-mothers-children-lose-700-5bn-welfare-crackdown.html
There is a quite an interesting article on this relating to William Beveridge's original intentions regarding welfare (only used as a last resort and you get out what you put in) and personal responsibility.
"By taking tough decisions, the Coalition has brought the benefits bill under control, saving the taxpayer £19 billion to date. But, just as important, we’re restoring fairness to the system.
Not the equality of outcome espoused by the Left, but real fairness – that very British idea that you should get out what you put in. It is why the driving principle of the Government’s welfare reforms is that it should always pay more to be in work than out of it."....
"We’ve learnt from Labour’s disastrous rollout of tax credits, which saw billions of pounds lost to fraud and error between 2003 and 2009, and we’re determined not to make the same mistakes"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523835/If-afford-child-foot-bill.html
Gaijin: No klomplend.
Scotland's Edinborough's financial companies are owned - in all extent - by the English tax-payer. The SNats want the English tax-payer to underwrite any losses these Edinborough excuses make through financial mismanagement, incompetence or ignorance.
Come 'independence' why should the English tax-payer fund foreign governments (directly or otherwise)? Correlation =/= causation: Just because nationalists in Sweden and Switzerland got wealthy in 1939-1945 does not mean that their Scots' counter-parts will not have that ambition....
This includes this statement:
"Scotland continues to show a net trade deficit, with the value of exports below the value
of imports, although these figures exclude trade in crude oil and natural gas extracted
from North Sea. The deficit in net trade narrowed to £2.6 billion in the first quarter of
2013, from £2.8 billion in the previous quarter. This was due to growth in the value of
exports totalling 3.0%, largely to the rest of the UK, while there was lower growth of
1.6% in the value of imports (including account balancing items).
Compared to 2012 Q1, the net trade deficit has widened by 12.4% from £2.3 billion, due
to growth in the value of imports outweighing the increase in exports to the rest of the
UK. Over the year, the value of exports to the rest of the world is estimated to have
decreased by 0.9% (-£46 million)."
Since the UK exports about £30bn of oil related products a conservative estimate would be that these figures might be improved by £7.5bn a quarter. This is probably low since most NS oil will be consumed in the UK but quite a lot of the value added on the base product will be added in England. If the Scottish Government figures are anywhere near reliable (big if given how many UK departments simply don't record this sort of information) then Scotland should be running a reasonable surplus ceteris paribus.
The paper also reports GDP per capita excluding oil for Scotland of £24K but this rises to £27,900 per capita when North sea oil is included. The latter figure is somewhat ahead of the UK average.
David is talking about setting, not streaming. This is the most effective to ensure the best education - not every mathmo is good at languages for instance.
@rcs1000 I would have thought the fund management - one of Scotland's strengths in financial services - could do pretty well in an independent set up (rather like Dublin) and it doesn't face the same LoLR issues as the big banks
Not happy buying nuclear bombs , funding illegal wars and propping up the rich whilst demonising the poor.
@ OblitusSumMe
"Wind energy has not dipped below 2GW for more than a week."
-------------
Well done, Renewables !
So when East Kilbride becomes as distant from "London" as Dehli we have an open-market in which Scotland will have to compete? East Kilbribe will no longer an issue in 'Westminster'....
Being "progressive" whilst trying not to be antagonistic to the Taffs and Ulster-Scots may play well in North Britain: Is Wee-Eck's plan just to upset the English?* Why do your fellow Scots not argue for independence as an historical right (as your nation is no equal to England; the North-East region thereof is a more egalitarian sample) and only fight around the mythical MacGormless magic-money-tree...?
* We have a history of "managing" the North!
Ultimately the question of whether Scotland should be an independent country will depend on whether the majority of Scots want to be British or not. I have never really believed that this argument is going to turn on a few quid one way or the other. It really shouldn't.
I know "moderation" is verboten but....
Without the usual discussion about how to fry/boil/broil/roast/natively eat a squirrel - and squirrel; red, gray or flying - we have had another session of meaningful discourse, debate and education. *
I know that he-who-cannot-control-his-latvian-homophobe-care-workers name affliction is missing but; I hope that he understands that sometimes gutter-politics don't work. I am sure me-mukkah Junior will relent soon...
:P
:feckin'-firefox-five-posting-gibberish:
Confusing England and the UK is one of the problems that bedevils discussion of the indy issue, to put it mildly.
And on that basis, the Scots would expect to take a population share (or similar) of the UK Gmt holding of shares in RBS (including Nat West), etc., as part of the sensible assets and debt divvy up. That happens to be about the same proportion as their activity. So I can't understand what the problem is.
What is accurate is that Clegg and scottish lib dems didn't seem remotely interested in reaching out to the two big blocks of votes that would have helped immensely which was SLAB and SNP voters in scotland. Not that Clegg himself could personally reach out since there was a very good reason he was featured so heavily in the No to AV campaign. That lib dem isolation over Yes to AV was felt on the ground by those in the SNP and SLAB who still supported Yes. They were hardly going to pull out all the stops to campaign hard for a lib dem leader supporting Yes who seemed uninterested in cross party support and who had just made the lib dems toxic in scotland thanks to the Con Dem coalition. If you think the No campaign being prominently supported by tories like Cameron and Osbrowne and lib dems like Clegg and Carmichael is pragmatic and effective then that is entirely up to you. Having helped out on the ground campaign I beg to differ and I also know that some of the recent polling on the salience of things like the EU and currency is accurate. (despite the usual pointless scaremongering about them on PB)
As for cross party support on the ground, Denis Canavan is working away with meetings across scotland face to face with voters directly appealing to disaffected SLAB voters. Patrick Harvie is also doing a good job appealing to former Lib Dems.
Unlike with Clegg and AV there is a very clear strategy in place for the ground campaign as well as for the most important debates to come. That strategy was highlighted during the SNP conference but of course wasn't noticed on here.
RBS/Lloyds will be owned by an - effective - English shareholder. Similar to the East Kilbride monstrosity (Gormless McBruin vote-system) there is no market reason why England should fund foreign out-sourced stables in Scotland if-and-only-if they can be better resourced elsewhere.
With Scotland outwith of the Westminster calculus then how does an independent nation expect the English system to help them? Royal-Mail, Centrica and National-Grid are external entities: National-Rail will no longer need all that infrastructure to Faslane and Rosyth. Ergo: No need for the English to pay for HS2 past Carlisle or Newcastle....
Put very simply those selling financial products in the UK have to comply with UK based regulators. We may well think they turned out to be as much use as chocolate tea pots in 2007 but they are in fact regarded as at least the second most sophisticated regulatory system in the world reflecting the markets they have to regulate. Approval by the UK regulatory authorities make approval to trade anywhere else in the world straightforward. Other countries also know that, unlike Iceland, Cyprus, Greece etc, the UK has the wherewithall to stand behind its financial institutions making it safe for other countries to allow them to trade on their territory.
Because this is a unitary authority it has not mattered until now that 2 of our largest banks, including what was for a while the world's largest bank, are based in Edinburgh. Scotland gets a ride on this system. If, however, Scotland goes independent then those very large banks and other major financial institutions such as Standard Life, Alliance Trust and others face being backed by a country that does not even have its own currency and limited capacity to borrow. They simply could not trade on their current basis in such a scenario. They also face the problem of having to comply with different regulatory arrangements north and south of the border with the inevitable costs and hassle this involves in terms of getting authorisations etc. Some may well wonder if the Scottish market is simply worth it given its size.
Before the crash RBS was the single largest taxpayer in the UK. One day it may be a major tax payer again. But not in Scotland. Ditto Lloyds. These institutions and the thousands of head office jobs that Scotland and Edinburgh's large number of private schools enjoy would head south. This would have a significant effect on the tax base and the budget of the Scottish government.
That is the issue.
From recollection there are about 3,000 well paid jobs in RBS HQ and so withdrawal would have a significant impact on the Edinburgh property market, service economy and tax pool
Well if you ever came to Edinburgh and went to South Gyle, or tried to cross the Forth Road Bridge at rush hour you would see the problem.
----
Before the crash RBS was the single largest taxpayer in the UK. One day it may be a major tax payer again. But not in Scotland. Ditto Lloyds. These institutions and the thousands of head office jobs that Scotland and Edinburgh's large number of private schools enjoy would head south. This would have a significant effect on the tax base and the budget of the Scottish government.
That is the issue.
Thank you. Food for thought (and yes I do know the Edinburgh bypass). But of course after indy the fact that RBS is the largest taxpayer in the UK is no longer a meaningful concept. Undoubtedly its activities and the tax take would be much smaller in an indy Scotland - but how much smaller? I also note that most of the tax base in question is in any case UK tax with no relation to what the Scottish budget gets at the moment. But yes, this is something to watch.
The other factor that I am not clear about is what happens to the financial sector if Scotland remains in the EU (ignoring the scare stories for the moment) but EWNI leaves - I can understand the implications for trade and industry well enough, but for finance?
Scottish bank-notes are supported by deposits held by Clydesdale, Lloyds and RBS at the Bank of England. Those funds do not belong to any government outwith a congruent share-holding,
Back-of-a-match-book calculation is that the English tax-payer underwrites half of all Scottish bank-notes. Post independence the two nations may have diverging economic requirements...
First of all it is likely that the UK government will have sold its bank shareholdings before Scotland is due to become independent. The Lloyds shares are likely to have been sold in toto by mid 2015 and most of the RBS Group should be off the government's books by March 2016.
But the real issue is not shareholding but the size of the banking groups's balance sheets, and the willingness and ability of the country in which the banks are registered to act as 'guarantor of last resort'.
The size of the Royal Bank of Scotland's balance sheet, for example, far exceeds Scotland's GNP and, at the time of the financial crisis, its net lending was increasing far faster than national GDP.
The problem of such an imbalance was shown in Ireland when government guarantees of its failing banks were unable to satisfy markets due to losses and ongoing risks exceeding the capacity of the country to cover. Even with the capacity of the UK to support RBS and Lloyds, the two groups are classified internationally as "systemically important banks" whose stability is critical to the global financial system. Securing their future stability will therefore require multi-national measures in addition to the regulation of the country of incorporation.
Independence would almost certainly require the divestment by the two UK groups of the retail banking operations and branch networks of the Bank of Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland. Whereas Edinburgh's strength in asset management may be sustainable its role in investment banking and other risky capital markets operations would likely be severely curtailed in a breaking up of the banking groups.
There would be advantages and disadvantages of such restructuring. Scotland would have a safer and more stable banking sector focussed primarily on meeting the needs of its own retail and corporate customer base. It would however lose its former seat at the casino table of global investment banking and even its retail and corporate banking operations would be constrained in growth due to the geo-demographic limits of its national market.
I read the article and just scanned it again. There's no mention of that quote of yours.
Were you referring to the anonymous comments underneath? I'd hardly take those as gospel.
:nothing-more-to-say(other-than-bye-bye):
The other factor that I am not clear about is what happens to the financial sector if Scotland remains in the EU (ignoring the scare stories for the moment) but EWNI leaves - I can understand the implications for trade and industry well enough, but for finance?
Goodness knows. What we can be confident of is that by far the largest single market for Scottish institutions (as now) will be rUK.
The relevance of head offices, apart from jobs, is that is where the company is based for tax purposes so if RBS was making money off its world wide operations it would in theory pay tax on that money in Edinburgh. So put all the problems to one side, in theory the tax payable on the profits of Natwest would have come to Scotland. Never going to happen.
Were you referring to the anonymous comments underneath? I'd hardly take those as gospel.
ROFL
Especially as we keep being told on here by the SNP contingent how badly Labour behaves in Scotland.
You
Come
On
I had not thought about National Rail, so that/s an interesting point. But being a UK Gmt owned body, the real estate including track would presumably be split on a geographical basis anyway. And nobody would expect an independent EWNI to build track north of Gretna or Lamberton Toll.
Perhaps HS2 is not the best argument to adduce here. There are no current plans at all to extend it beyond Preston/Leeds etc. (and that is on the current thinking for a Phase 2 long, long in the future - to open in 2033). So what you describe would be a considerable improvement on that. Meanwhile, the Scots taxpayers are already expected to pay their share for HS2 Phase 1 from Birmingham to London, as this is, as far as I am aware, currently excluded from the Barnett consequentials (like, e.g. the replacement of London's Bazalgette sewers). This seems illogical, to put it mildly, given that rail infrastructure is devolved to Scotland at present (and indeed the Scottish Government is already discussing how best to implement HS within Scotland). So the Scottish taxpayer would be in the absurd position of paying twice over for HS2, at least on the face of it. It might also have been more convincing as a grand project to tie Great Britain together, in the model of the US, Canada and Bismarckian Germany, if it did not stop in a dead end at Euston without bothering to continue on (at least on some plans) to e.g. HS1 to the Channel Tunnel (I do know about the spur line), or on to the south and southwest of England who are also very badly done by. One doesn't have to have an opinion pro or anti indy to realise how this has played politically beyond the Chilterns.
Were you referring to the anonymous comments underneath? I'd hardly take those as gospel.
Clegg made sure David Laws was in charge of the lib dems 2015 election manifesto. Highly amusing though that is (and no doubt also done to try and shore up Clegg personally as leader) it doesn't exactly indicate a truly massive lurch to complete differentiation is on the cards. Nor would it be believed by very many of the public. It's far too late for that now, particularly with Clegg as leader.
We English did not vote for Gormless McBruin or Wee-Eck (RBS) cos' we aint' as f'ick as a Northern Britischer. Numpties....
:FOSNY:
Next thing you know they'll be taking the partisan articles by the Hootsman's former political editor as gospel.
LOL
Local-taxes in Lewisham include GLA funding for any travel/future-sewer/rail infrastructure. What pishes us folk off is the Barnett kick-back that we also have to fund.*
That said; nice to have an open conversation about the incompetence of Wee-Eck and his followers....
* Edinborough trams.... :slap-head:
:seriously-sniggering:
My fears were that you had been sent to China after being forced to bottle your *tears of laughter*.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqwDoMqyWxw
*chortle*
Perhaps the nationalists would quite like to be rid of RBS and this would be a convenient way out?
Thank you. Overall data certainly don't suggest that the Scots are being subsidised by the (undoubtedly long-suffering) Lewisham folk - possibly other parts of the UK, but not Scotland.
I'm a little surprised you adduce the Edinburgh trams, much as I agree that they are a disgrace (even allowing for the piling on of a lot of basic infrastructure improvement to the bill while the diversions to cabling etc. were done). They were forced on the then minority SNP Government by a Labour-LD coalition as I well recall, and the critical early stages were then bungled by the Labour-LD coalition then running Edinburgh. The Tories and Greens also voted for the trams in the Parliament, I believe. The SNP intent with the money had been inter aliis to dual the A9, the main road through the Highlands and a dangerous one. They get blamed for not dualling it s well ...
Not to worry. To save you and so many other PB tories valuable time here's a swift reminder of where things stand and which issue is going to dominate for the next six months or so.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png
The clue is in the purple line in case you still don't get it.
Down to 13 years of New Labour education policy, I'm sure.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-news-we-knew/
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/scotland-12288-union-public
Obviously the subsidy myth is the type of nonsense Daily Mail readers are inclined to believe but it's still bullshit nonetheless.
Were you referring to the anonymous comments underneath? I'd hardly take those as gospel.
I was indeed referring to one of the 'anonymous comments underneath'; that's why my second link was to one of the comments... And, yes, of course we shouldn't take those as gospel! That's why I was asking if anyone had insider knowledge that might corroborate (or not) the impression that comment gave of Clegg and Alexander. I'm interested in glimpses into the more private, behind the scenes character of people in the public eye, that's all.
Really? You'd want it to be true?
Multiple choice question. Who got the most votes in the last election:
1. The Conservatives
2. The LibDems
3. The "very Labour leaning civil servant"
Now my best guess, and it's only a guess mind you, is that the LD vote combined with the Very Labour Leaning Civil Servant Party didn't hit the 10.7 million that the Tories reached.
So where is their mandate and their right to "work tirelessly to keep the Tories in check", Kevin?
Multiple choice question. Who got the most votes in the last election:
1. The Conservatives
2. The LibDems
3. The "very Labour leaning civil servant"
Now my best guess, and it's only a guess mind you, is that the LD vote combined with the Very Labour Leaning Civil Servant Party didn't hit the 10.7 million that the Tories reached.
So where is their mandate and their right to "work tirelessly to keep the Tories in check", Kevin?
Cammie's failure to win a majority obviously.
Cameron couldn't even manage that against the hopeless Brown and had to go running to Clegg to save him by forming the coalition. The truth is without lib dem votes in the commons the tories can do nothing so both sides either agree or policy goes the way of boundary changes and Lords reform.
The reason differentiation won't work has nothing to do with upset tories who still don't realise that Cameron didn't win a majority. It won't work because the public are well aware Clegg happily signed up to a tory lib dem coalition in 2010. So it looks just a bit much for either party to complain and posture about it just before the next election. It's not credible.
PB tory logic in action.
Having said that, if you gave me a straight choice of Tory majority or Labour majority at the next GE, I'd choose the former without hesitation. I've got real worries that the UK will get into major economic trouble pretty swiftly if Miliband becomes PM.
"This isn’t the first time that Mandela has been painted a womanising wife-beater: in 2010, David James Smith wrote a biography called Young Mandela. He recounts how Evelyn claimed he beat and throttled her, and even threatened to murder her with an axe."
" the filmmakers felt it important to show their subject as he was. Drafts of the film were shown to members of Mandela’s circle, and approved, though one, Ahmed Kathrada, who spent 26 years in prison with Mandela, did object to portions of script showing Mandela’s roving eye and flying fists. But Mandela, according to Nicholson, ‘trusted’ the director to get it right.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523782/Ill-hate-mail--Mandela-NOT-perfect.html#ixzz2nYYOhMwW
Cameron couldn't even manage that against the hopeless Brown and had to go running to Clegg to save him by forming the coalition. The truth is without lib dem votes in the commons the tories can do nothing so both sides either agree or policy goes the way of boundary changes and Lords reform.
The reason differentiation won't work has nothing to do with upset tories who still don't realise that Cameron didn't win a majority. It won't work because the public are well aware Clegg happily signed up to a tory lib dem coalition in 2010. So it looks just a bit much for either party to complain and posture about it just before the next election. It's not credible.
I don't think Clegg "happily" signed up top a coalition with the baby-eaters.
...another economics remedial who fails to grasp that my family are massive net contributors.
Pointless discussing it with you really.
I tried and failed to post this a minute ago so I'll apologise in advance if this is duplicated.
You've defended the actions of the LD and that I actually fully support. The junior partner isn't the unthinking slave and they have a mandate to nudge behind the scenes in their preferred direction of travel.
But that doesn't (and you don't) address my main concern and that's our "very Labour leaning civil servant" thinking that he has an active and colluding role to play in your LD policy tweaking sessions. He is there to impartially follow instructions from his elected political masters. Nobody should know his politics, let alone him wear them as a badge of honour.
Imagine the speed that tickets would be sold on your Outrage Bus if a "very UKIP leaning civil servant" was actively manipulating policy in a LD department? I suspect that you are happy with the situation when it works to your favour but would be aghast if the roles were reversed.