I see the Court of Appeal has refused the Secretary of State permission to appeal to the Supreme Court against its decision in Othman. Can't see the Supreme Court granting leave, but since Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath of Notting Hill and Lord Hughes of Ombersley's promotion, I guess anything could happen.
in fact there is a faintly corrupt consensus on nearly every major issue.
Meanwhile Guido cites Nigel Farage as confessing to being well acquainted with the inside of a lap dancing club today....
Politically correct? not me guvnor. Giss a ciggie and put Top Gear on...
One of my heroes, Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman, famously frequented strip joints whilst working at Caltech.
"When county officials tried to close the place, all the regulars except Feynman refused to testify in favor of the bar, fearing that their families would learn of their visits. Feynman accepted, and in court affirmed that the bar was a public need, stating that craftsmen, technicians, engineers, common workers, "and a physics professor" frequented the establishment."
"What we are witnessing in Italy is remarkable, and at times scarcely believable. On April 20th, after five failed attempts to elect a new president, an electoral college that includes the members of both chambers of parliament, plumped for the incumbent, Giorgio Napolitano, who is 87 years old. Nicholas Spiro, a sovereign risk analyst, called it “the clearest indication yet of the utter dysfunctionality of Italian politics”.
Desperate to retire, Mr Napolitano had ruled himself out as a candidate. But the leaders of the two biggest mainstream parties, Pier Luigi Bersani, the secretary general of the centre-left Democratic Party (PD), and Silvio Berlusconi, the de facto leader of the conservative People of Freedom (PdL), had earlier gone to the Quirinal palace to beg him to stay on. Poor Mr Napolitano wearily agreed.
In the ballot that followed he received 738 votes out of a possible 1,007. It is the first time in the 65-year history of the Italian republic that a president has been voted in for a second term."
"Warning. The following post contains praise of George Osborne. Those of a sensitive disposition should look away now. Of course, praising Osborne as a master strategist was once a fairly mainstream journalistic activity (although I never succumbed). The practice fell away sharply after last year's omnishambolic Budget, until it has reached the point where it is deeply unfashionable to be caught saying anything nice about the Chancellor in print or on a blog. As a result I accept that what I am about to say will be regarded in many quarters as shocking."
Andy, I'm slightly baffled as to why Berlusconi seems so happy about this turn of events. From what I can gather, the main effect of Napolitano being re-elected is that it's now much less likely there will be a quick second election, which you would think Berlusconi would want given that he now has a narrow lead in the polls. As it is, it'll presumably be a grand coalition, but with a Prime Minister from the centre-left.
"I welcome the comments made by Professor of Economics at Dartmouth College and former external member of the Monetary Policy Committee, David Blanchflower, reinforcing our view that a monetary union with the rest of the UK is the most sensible currency option for an independent Scotland.
Professor Blanchflower said:
“Should the people of Scotland choose independence in next year’s referendum it would make sense for Scotland to enter a formal monetary union with the rest of the UK with the Bank of England operating as central bank for the common monetary area.
“Independence within a currency union would represent a substantial increase in the economic responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament. A currency union would provide the full flexibility to vary tax and spending decisions to target key opportunities and challenges in Scotland – powers that are currently unavailable to the Scottish Parliament.
“George Osborne would be better off revisiting his misguided and failing policies for growth rather than scaremongering to the people of Scotland.”"
“Should the people of Scotland choose independence in next year’s referendum it would make sense for Scotland to enter a formal monetary union with the rest of the UK with the Bank of England operating as central bank for the common monetary area.
He's probably right that a currency union would be better for Scotland. But it's probably not better for rUK - and guess who gets to decide the matter.
"suggestion that the United Kingdom should have paid political adverts fills me with absolute dread. "
Amen to that times 1000.
The parties are more than able to adequately get across their messages without it, I see no reason it would reach that many more people or reverse voter apathy, and the negatives are hugely concerning. I've never seen a convincing reason why it should be changed.
While we're talking about American-style politics, I happened to look over the odds for the GOP nominee in 2016. I know I would say this, because I'm a shameless Democrat etc etc, but if Rubio takes a tumble, as he could well do over immigration reform, they're really in trouble.
Paul Ryan - could get the nomination, but now widely considered very right wing and suffers from a dismal 35% approval rating despite wide name recognition
Chris Christie - given that he's bringing forward gun control legislation in New Jersey, it looks like he's going to be running for re-election there rather than pitching to the national GOP primary. Can't see him getting through if he did after his Obama embrace anyway.
Jeb Bush - the name is toxic. He could get away from it if he distanced himself from his brother, but it looks like he's unwilling to do so.
Rand Paul - one for the future, but his brand of libertarianism does not have majority support in the party. Marijuana legalisation will be toxic with the elderly electorate and isolationist foreign policy views unacceptable to the establishment.
Bobby Jindal - has just killed his reputation with a very right wing economic plan in Louisiana. Now polls worse than Obama in a very right wing state.
Rob Portman - viable in both the primary and the general, but has never set the world alight.
Condoleeza Rice - anyone backing her is an idiot. Pro-life, doesn't like politics, etc etc.
Scott Walker - viable in the primary, but very controversial
Rick Santorum - clearly toxic in a general
Eric Cantor - very unpopular nationwide
Jon Huntsman - won't get through a GOP primary
Mike Huckabee - I think the country has moved on from his form of politics, can't see him being viable in a general
Nikki Haley - Tea Party now hates her, doubt she could get through a GOP primary
Susanna Martinez - way too moderate for a GOP primary
Sarah Palin - enough said
Bob McDonnel - as if supporting confederate history month wasn't bad enough, he's now looking like he'll fall to a corruption scandal
Ted Cruz - way too right wing for a general electorate
Mitt Romney - widely considered to run an incompetent campaign last time and no one liked him anyway
John Bolton - not a politician
Michele Bachmann - a joke
Rick Perry - see above
Arnold Schwrzneggar - hated by conservatives, reputation trashed after his affair etc
David Petraeus - reputation trashed by affair, not a politician
Ron Paul - a crazy old man
Donald Trump - who bets on this stuff?
Newt Gingrich - a man of the past in 2012
Not on the list are a bunch of Republican governors in the 2010 wave that have also terrible approval ratings: Rick Scott, Paul LePage, Rick Snyder etc. I guess John Kasich is doing alright.
So if the GOP base turn against Rubio over immigration reform, it looks like Portman, Walker and Kasich are the options. That has to be concerning.
Oh no, we can't we be having paid political ads over here upsetting our delicate social equilibrium. We must set examples of calm civilised comportment for our benighted bumptious American friends:
by our Royal Family, House of Lords, and honours list; by the behaviour of our financial mandarins; by our public schoolboy governance; by our peaceful streets, football players and crowds; by the possibility that we may be fragmenting; by the freedom of out research scientists and authors to report and discuss results sensibly without the danger of sapping lawsuits pursued against them by big firms; by our sensible and measured press...
Of course it is, it will be to both countries' mutual benefit. I'm bemused by how people seem to be taking what the Treasury (ie. the No campaign) are saying at face value.
Oh no, we can't we be having paid political ads over here upsetting our delicate social equilibrium. We must set examples of calm civilised comportment for our benighted bumptious American friends:
by our Royal Family, House of Lords, and honours list; by the behaviour of our financial mandarins; by our public schoolboy governance; by our peaceful streets, football players and crowds; by the possibility that we may be fragmenting; by the freedom of out research scientists and authors to report and discuss results sensibly without the danger of sapping lawsuits pursued against them by big firms; by our sensible and measured press...
James - but Blanchflower's comments are a mixture of red herrings, SotBO's, and dubious assertions.
Why would it "make sense" for a so-called independent Scotland to join a monetary union over which it would probably have less control than it does now? He doesn't say.
It is independence, not the currency union that would bring the substantial increase in powers. A currency union reduces the powers available to, and responsibilities of, the parliament.
As for his final point, Osborne has overseen record employment in the UK, despite restraint in spending and low growth (actually, rather better growth than is given credit for if exceptionals such as oil production are stripped out).
Prof Blachflower would be better off revisiting his misguided and failing economic models rather than scaremongering to the people of the country.
If it is as you say mutually beneficial can you detail what benefits you see for a rump UK. While I support scots independence I fail to see what possible benefits the rump uk gets from monetary union and the potential risk of monetary transfer across the border.
By all means use the pound but my vote would certainly be against formal monetary union
"Why would it "make sense" for a so-called independent Scotland to join a monetary union over which it would probably have less control than it does now? He doesn't say."
Oh, he does say. What you mean is you don't like what he says. He explicitly rejects your premise that it would have less control than it does now. An utterly self-evident point, because Scotland has zero control at the moment.
@WilliamGlenn On the Public Health job she seems to have a point as off the top of my head all the ministers in that role since it's inception in 1997 have been women
“Should the people of Scotland choose independence in next year’s referendum it would make sense for Scotland to enter a formal monetary union with the rest of the UK with the Bank of England operating as central bank for the common monetary area.
He's probably right that a currency union would be better for Scotland. But it's probably not better for rUK - and guess who gets to decide the matter.
Exactly:
From the treasury report:
P. 51:
"But the economic rationale for the UK to agree to enter a formal sterling union with another state is not clear. The recent experience of the euro area has shown that it is extremely challenging to sustain a successful formal currency union without close fiscal integration and common arrangements for the resolution of banking sector difficulties. For independent countries to design and agree on such a complex and untested institutional framework would be very challenging as is illustrated by the ongoing discussions of reform in the euro area.
P. 52:
'These benefits would be greater for an independent Scotland state than for the continuing UK, given the asymmetry of trade exposure'
P.54:
However,characteristics of a formal sterling currency union between the continuing UK and an independent Scottish state would differ significantly from the euro area example. First, the euro area was founded as an agreement across many states to give up their national currencies and monetary institutions to introduce a new single currency with new common institutions. In contrast, a formal sterling currency union would begin with a request from a smaller new member (an independent Scottish state) to a larger established member (the continuing UK) to modify its existing arrangements to allow for a common use of the larger member’s currency and institutions.
"They might prefer Scotland not to choose independence (which is their right) but, if we do, here are just three economic reasons why the rest of the UK would also prefer a continuing sterling zone to any of the other options that would be available.
1. Trade. There is about £45bn of trade that flows – in each direction – between Scotland and England every year. Businesses – in England and Scotland – will want to continue to trade in sterling.
2. Balance of payments. Scotland would make an important contribution to a Sterling zone’s balance of payments. Our onshore economy exports £23.9 billion in goods and services to the rest of the world; whilst oil and gas production, the vast majority of which occurs in Scottish waters, boosts the UK balance of payments by a further £40 billion. Given the state of the UK economy, they won’t want to give that up.
3. Debt. If the UK government sticks to the line that an independent Scotland has no right to a share of UK assets (after all, it is our pound and our central bank as much as it the rest of the UK’s), then the inescapable quid pro quo is that we won’t be liable for any of its debts either. Somehow, I don’t think that’s an outcome they would be happy with."
@WilliamGlenn On the Public Health job she seems to have a point as off the top of my head all the ministers in that role since it's inception in 1997 have been women
was Mr Osborne's trip to Scotland part of some dark Conservative plot to lose the great battle for Scottish independence next year, and thereby secure the Conservative Party victory in the general election of 2015?
I'm not sure presiding over the end of the Union will enamour the Conservatives to some of their supporters....
And of course there is a very good chance the nominee will be up against St Hillary.
The GoP may as well pick a sacrificial lamb.
What's Barry Goldwater doing these days?
I'm looking down the list of Governors and Senators to find more. Mike Pence and Jon Thune are the other ones that you can take seriously. But Pence is very much an old school style Christian conservative.
So we have a list of Rubio, Walker, Portman, Kasich, Pence and Thune. In terms of talent, the only ones I can see nearly competing against Hillary are Rubio and Thune.
I suspect Hillary will get a big win. If she takes places like Georgia and Missouri, it's very likely that will be enough to seriously cause the Republicans to do radical change. The question is whether it'll be in a Paul direction or a Huntsman direction.
"They might prefer Scotland not to choose independence (which is their right) but, if we do, here are just three economic reasons why the rest of the UK would also prefer a continuing sterling zone to any of the other options that would be available.
1. Trade. There is about £45bn of trade that flows – in each direction – between Scotland and England every year. Businesses – in England and Scotland – will want to continue to trade in sterling.
2. Balance of payments. Scotland would make an important contribution to a Sterling zone’s balance of payments. Our onshore economy exports £23.9 billion in goods and services to the rest of the world; whilst oil and gas production, the vast majority of which occurs in Scottish waters, boosts the UK balance of payments by a further £40 billion. Given the state of the UK economy, they won’t want to give that up.
3. Debt. If the UK government sticks to the line that an independent Scotland has no right to a share of UK assets (after all, it is our pound and our central bank as much as it the rest of the UK’s), then the inescapable quid pro quo is that we won’t be liable for any of its debts either. Somehow, I don’t think that’s an outcome they would be happy with."
1. The UK doesn't have any trade with the Eurozone, clearly. 2. "Sterling Zone balance of payments". BOP is a national measure, not a currency union measure. Nobody talks about the Eurozone balance of payments, only the French, German, Portuguese, etc. Plus oil running out and fracking on the rise. 3. Fair enough. Not sure what this has to do with a common currency though.
"You can try and argue that certainly and I wish you luck it will be certainly amusing to watch"
You mean less amusing than the London establishment's curious belief that Scotland should take a fair share of the UK's debts, but isn't entitled to a fair share of the UK's assets?
"Why would it "make sense" for a so-called independent Scotland to join a monetary union over which it would probably have less control than it does now? He doesn't say."
Oh, he does say. What you mean is you don't like what he says. He explicitly rejects your premise that it would have less control than it does now. An utterly self-evident point, because Scotland has zero control at the moment.
Of course Scotland has a degree of control. It has about 8% of members of the UK parliament, to which the government is accountable. It supplied Chancellors of the Exchequer throughout Labour's period in office. The BoE takes Scotland's economy into account as much as any other equivalent region of the UK, such as Yorkshire.
By contrast, after independence, there's no guarantee that it would have any control. That would be entirely dependent on whether the UK wished to enter an agreement - and I can see no good reason why a remaining UK would want to enter one.
Scotland could of course use the pound sterling anyway, in the same way as Montenegro uses the Euro, but its representatives would have no say at all in the policies of the government or central bank, which themselves would have no obligation to consider Scotland's interests.
There are also polls suggesting a strong majority would vote Yes if the Conservatives were certain to win the next UK election, others citing a fairer society as no.1 reason for voting for independence. As ever there are lots of different motivations, the Scots aren't unique in that regard.
By "fairer" society i assume respondents mean the traditional definition of fair - "I get more/pay less and others get less/pay more"?
Even if Hillary doesn't run - and I think it just turns on her health - the Democrats have decent back-ups in Cuomo and Gillebrand. Looks like the GOP will struggle to find a nominee who could beat either, and if it's Clinton they may as well not show up.
3. Debt. If the UK government sticks to the line that an independent Scotland has no right to a share of UK assets (after all, it is our pound and our central bank as much as it the rest of the UK’s), then the inescapable quid pro quo is that we won’t be liable for any of its debts either. Somehow, I don’t think that’s an outcome they would be happy with."
She's confusing 'assets' with 'currency union' - they are different things.
Oh, and good luck getting into the EU or NATO if you renege on your debts.....
Spain's central bank has forecast that the Spanish GDP for Q1 2013 will decline by -0.5% on a quarter on quarter basis and -2.0% on a year on year basis.
"Oh, and good luck getting into the EU or NATO if you renege on your debts....."
Carlotta, my love, you can't renege on debts that by the UK government's own logic can't possibly exist.
And I know you're struggling with this concept, but we don't need to "get into" the EU. We're in it. Ask your (former) heroine Lucinda Creighton - she'll bring you up to speed.
Interesting that the consensus on here appears to be that the Democracy will win a third consecutive term in the White House. That hasn't happened since the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry S Truman. Of course, the Republicans held the Presidency between 1981 and 1993.
Ladbrokes have refunded £200,000 of bets on horses which tested positive for banned drugs
Eh? Should it not be on horses that lost to drugged nags ?
None of the horses in question were in training, TGOHF, but you raise a most relevant question.
The number of horses involved suggests the practice was widespread and has been going on for years. (The trainer in question has 'previous'.) This raises the question of how many stallions at stud owe their position to performances in the laboratory as much as the race track.
There must be a question mark now over the stud fees charged by many a bloodstock agent.
EDIT: For the avoidance of doubt, I should add that your own stud fees should remained unaltered.
"He's brought Korea up again.....things must be going well......"
Just following the Cammo campaign strategy, my love. He apparently thinks Scots will be persuaded to stay in the UK because of the vague possibility that North Korea might randomly decide to nuke Dundee in 2063.
I fear for Dublin - it's got no chance against Kim Jong-un without an "independent nuclear deterrent"
Got to say that if the Coalition really does want Scotland to vote against independence the last two people they should be sending up there to argue the case are George and Danny. It does make you wonder about a hidden agenda ...
Interesting that the consensus on here appears to be that the Democracy will win a third consecutive term in the White House. That hasn't happened since the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry S Truman. Of course, the Republicans held the Presidency between 1981 and 1993.
Not sure it's that much of a consensus, Life, but my view is that even if they find a decent candidate, the GOP will still have difficulty avoiding the blame for the political gridlock on Capitol Hill in recent years.
They may well have lost the centre ground already, which basically means they have lost the next election.
"The problem for Scotland is that the rUK can provide something that in fact costs it very little, but the absence of which would cost Scotland a great deal, so rUK will be able to ask for a high price. Unless the new Scottish government is prepared to pay for a Bank of England LOLR role with some of its oil revenues, it may find it has nothing to bargain with. If no agreement can be found, the Treasury paper is quite right to conclude that using sterling unilaterally would not be attractive for Scotland. So rather than accept damaging fiscal restrictions, the new Scottish government may end up with its own currency after all."
"So the SNP now has to persuade Scottish voters that the British government is lying"
I see what you mean, Sean, that'll never work. Oh wait...
So you want a currency union with a country whose government, in your opinion, is prepared to lie about crucial aspects of this future union. Why?
And what if the British government, which you despise, but want to unite with, ISN'T lying? What if you vote for independence and ask for that union and London says No? What then?
Why does the phrase "painted themselves into a corner" spring to mind.
"So the SNP now has to persuade Scottish voters that the British government is lying"
I see what you mean, Sean, that'll never work. Oh wait...
And what if the British government, which you despise, but want to unite with, ISN'T lying? What if you vote for independence and ask for that union and London says No? What then?
You weren't expecting an answer to that, were you?
Let me introduce you to the apparently unwitting irony of what you've just said
Can it be any better than the irony of tea party tories trying to argue about process when the incompetent fop doesn't have a clue if he will support IN or OUT for his Cast Iron referendum?
Perhaps we have the hilarious situation where the nominally unionist Westminster government is trying to push Scots towards the exit by putting up Osborne as their spokesman, and the SNP, by their ludicrous antics on the currency, NATO and the EU, are trying to frighten Scots so they stay in.
If so, I'm afraid the SNP's fear and confusion will predominate. I really can't see Scots buying this shambles, much though I'd be happy if they did.
Comments
"When county officials tried to close the place, all the regulars except Feynman refused to testify in favor of the bar, fearing that their families would learn of their visits. Feynman accepted, and in court affirmed that the bar was a public need, stating that craftsmen, technicians, engineers, common workers, "and a physics professor" frequented the establishment."
Desperate to retire, Mr Napolitano had ruled himself out as a candidate. But the leaders of the two biggest mainstream parties, Pier Luigi Bersani, the secretary general of the centre-left Democratic Party (PD), and Silvio Berlusconi, the de facto leader of the conservative People of Freedom (PdL), had earlier gone to the Quirinal palace to beg him to stay on. Poor Mr Napolitano wearily agreed.
In the ballot that followed he received 738 votes out of a possible 1,007. It is the first time in the 65-year history of the Italian republic that a president has been voted in for a second term."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2013/04/italian-politics-1
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100213491/good-for-george-osborne-reminding-the-scots-that-independence-is-not-a-one-way-street/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Danny '5 million unemployed' Blanchflower (I beg your pardon, 'Professor David Blanchflower') rides to the rescue:
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2013/apr/snp-welcome-professor-blanchflowers-comments
Well, he was right about unemployment, so why not this too?
"I welcome the comments made by Professor of Economics at Dartmouth College and former external member of the Monetary Policy Committee, David Blanchflower, reinforcing our view that a monetary union with the rest of the UK is the most sensible currency option for an independent Scotland.
Professor Blanchflower said:
“Should the people of Scotland choose independence in next year’s referendum it would make sense for Scotland to enter a formal monetary union with the rest of the UK with the Bank of England operating as central bank for the common monetary area.
“Independence within a currency union would represent a substantial increase in the economic responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament. A currency union would provide the full flexibility to vary tax and spending decisions to target key opportunities and challenges in Scotland – powers that are currently unavailable to the Scottish Parliament.
“George Osborne would be better off revisiting his misguided and failing policies for growth rather than scaremongering to the people of Scotland.”"
http://www.scotreferendum.com/2013/04/22/reinforcing-the-case-for-sterling-zone/
Amen to that times 1000.
The parties are more than able to adequately get across their messages without it, I see no reason it would reach that many more people or reverse voter apathy, and the negatives are hugely concerning. I've never seen a convincing reason why it should be changed.
Here's the list after Rubio:
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election-2016/republican-candidate
Paul Ryan - could get the nomination, but now widely considered very right wing and suffers from a dismal 35% approval rating despite wide name recognition
Chris Christie - given that he's bringing forward gun control legislation in New Jersey, it looks like he's going to be running for re-election there rather than pitching to the national GOP primary. Can't see him getting through if he did after his Obama embrace anyway.
Jeb Bush - the name is toxic. He could get away from it if he distanced himself from his brother, but it looks like he's unwilling to do so.
Rand Paul - one for the future, but his brand of libertarianism does not have majority support in the party. Marijuana legalisation will be toxic with the elderly electorate and isolationist foreign policy views unacceptable to the establishment.
Bobby Jindal - has just killed his reputation with a very right wing economic plan in Louisiana. Now polls worse than Obama in a very right wing state.
Rob Portman - viable in both the primary and the general, but has never set the world alight.
Condoleeza Rice - anyone backing her is an idiot. Pro-life, doesn't like politics, etc etc.
Scott Walker - viable in the primary, but very controversial
Rick Santorum - clearly toxic in a general
Eric Cantor - very unpopular nationwide
Jon Huntsman - won't get through a GOP primary
Mike Huckabee - I think the country has moved on from his form of politics, can't see him being viable in a general
Nikki Haley - Tea Party now hates her, doubt she could get through a GOP primary
Susanna Martinez - way too moderate for a GOP primary
Sarah Palin - enough said
Bob McDonnel - as if supporting confederate history month wasn't bad enough, he's now looking like he'll fall to a corruption scandal
Ted Cruz - way too right wing for a general electorate
Mitt Romney - widely considered to run an incompetent campaign last time and no one liked him anyway
John Bolton - not a politician
Michele Bachmann - a joke
Rick Perry - see above
Arnold Schwrzneggar - hated by conservatives, reputation trashed after his affair etc
David Petraeus - reputation trashed by affair, not a politician
Ron Paul - a crazy old man
Donald Trump - who bets on this stuff?
Newt Gingrich - a man of the past in 2012
Not on the list are a bunch of Republican governors in the 2010 wave that have also terrible approval ratings: Rick Scott, Paul LePage, Rick Snyder etc. I guess John Kasich is doing alright.
So if the GOP base turn against Rubio over immigration reform, it looks like Portman, Walker and Kasich are the options. That has to be concerning.
by our Royal Family, House of Lords, and honours list; by the behaviour of our financial mandarins; by our public schoolboy governance; by our peaceful streets, football players and crowds; by the possibility that we may be fragmenting; by the freedom of out research scientists and authors to report and discuss results sensibly without the danger of sapping lawsuits pursued against them by big firms; by our sensible and measured press...
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=blair+demon+eyes&hl=en&biw=1680&bih=937&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSEgmX7rwuauFmHSHcfdiQC344jg&dur=5598
'' My favourite poles are the ones I use at Spearmint Rhino.....??"
Of course it is, it will be to both countries' mutual benefit. I'm bemused by how people seem to be taking what the Treasury (ie. the No campaign) are saying at face value.
And of course there is a very good chance the nominee will be up against St Hillary.
The GoP may as well pick a sacrificial lamb.
What's Barry Goldwater doing these days?
Why would it "make sense" for a so-called independent Scotland to join a monetary union over which it would probably have less control than it does now? He doesn't say.
It is independence, not the currency union that would bring the substantial increase in powers. A currency union reduces the powers available to, and responsibilities of, the parliament.
As for his final point, Osborne has overseen record employment in the UK, despite restraint in spending and low growth (actually, rather better growth than is given credit for if exceptionals such as oil production are stripped out).
Prof Blachflower would be better off revisiting his misguided and failing economic models rather than scaremongering to the people of the country.
I am looking forward to a PB get-together at Dirty Dick's post referendum.
Will it take long for you to get your passport sorted so we can make sure you don't miss it?
If it is as you say mutually beneficial can you detail what benefits you see for a rump UK. While I support scots independence I fail to see what possible benefits the rump uk gets from monetary union and the potential risk of monetary transfer across the border.
By all means use the pound but my vote would certainly be against formal monetary union
Is this the Dirty Dick's in Minsk?
Oh, he does say. What you mean is you don't like what he says. He explicitly rejects your premise that it would have less control than it does now. An utterly self-evident point, because Scotland has zero control at the moment.
From the treasury report:
P. 51:
"But the economic rationale for the UK to agree to enter a formal sterling union with another state is not clear. The recent experience of the euro area has shown that it is extremely challenging to sustain a successful formal currency union without close fiscal integration and common arrangements for the resolution of banking sector difficulties. For independent countries to design and agree on such a complex and untested institutional framework would be very challenging as is illustrated by the ongoing discussions of reform in the euro area.
P. 52:
'These benefits would be greater for an independent Scotland state than for the continuing UK, given the asymmetry of trade exposure'
P.54:
However,characteristics of a formal sterling currency union between the continuing UK and an independent Scottish state would differ significantly from the euro area example. First, the euro area was founded as an agreement across many states to give up their national currencies and monetary institutions to introduce a new single currency with new common institutions. In contrast, a formal sterling currency union would begin
with a request from a smaller new member (an independent Scottish state) to a larger established member (the continuing UK) to modify its existing arrangements to allow for a common use of the larger member’s currency and institutions.
"They might prefer Scotland not to choose independence (which is their right) but, if we do, here are just three economic reasons why the rest of the UK would also prefer a continuing sterling zone to any of the other options that would be available.
1. Trade. There is about £45bn of trade that flows – in each direction – between Scotland and England every year. Businesses – in England and Scotland – will want to continue to trade in sterling.
2. Balance of payments. Scotland would make an important contribution to a Sterling zone’s balance of payments. Our onshore economy exports £23.9 billion in goods and services to the rest of the world; whilst oil and gas production, the vast majority of which occurs in Scottish waters, boosts the UK balance of payments by a further £40 billion. Given the state of the UK economy, they won’t want to give that up.
3. Debt. If the UK government sticks to the line that an independent Scotland has no right to a share of UK assets (after all, it is our pound and our central bank as much as it the rest of the UK’s), then the inescapable quid pro quo is that we won’t be liable for any of its debts either. Somehow, I don’t think that’s an outcome they would be happy with."
http://www.scotreferendum.com/2013/04/23/independence-would-boost-economic-opportunities-for-scotland/
So we have a list of Rubio, Walker, Portman, Kasich, Pence and Thune. In terms of talent, the only ones I can see nearly competing against Hillary are Rubio and Thune.
I suspect Hillary will get a big win. If she takes places like Georgia and Missouri, it's very likely that will be enough to seriously cause the Republicans to do radical change. The question is whether it'll be in a Paul direction or a Huntsman direction.
'It's a triumph for Dave!'
2. "Sterling Zone balance of payments". BOP is a national measure, not a currency union measure. Nobody talks about the Eurozone balance of payments, only the French, German, Portuguese, etc. Plus oil running out and fracking on the rise.
3. Fair enough. Not sure what this has to do with a common currency though.
Oh I dunno. They loved Mrs Thatcher even after she handed Hong Kong back to communist China.
2 Scotland will be a different country its exports will not count towards the rump uk balance of payments with or without monetary union
3 You can try and argue that certainly and I wish you luck it will be certainly amusing to watch
You mean less amusing than the London establishment's curious belief that Scotland should take a fair share of the UK's debts, but isn't entitled to a fair share of the UK's assets?
Well, comedy is a very personal thing, I suppose.
By contrast, after independence, there's no guarantee that it would have any control. That would be entirely dependent on whether the UK wished to enter an agreement - and I can see no good reason why a remaining UK would want to enter one.
Scotland could of course use the pound sterling anyway, in the same way as Montenegro uses the Euro, but its representatives would have no say at all in the policies of the government or central bank, which themselves would have no obligation to consider Scotland's interests.
And those MPs (the Labour majority we elected) have no input or influence whatsoever. Therefore, de facto zero control.
"It supplied Chancellors of the Exchequer throughout Labour's period in office."
What does "supplied" mean? UK Prime Ministers appointed individual Scots to the office. How does that give Scotland control?
"The BoE takes Scotland's economy into account as much as any other equivalent region of the UK"
And the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic, and run by the people. Back on planet Earth...
Forgive me if I roll my eyes...
Ladbrokes have refunded £200,000 of bets on horses which tested positive for banned drugs
Eh? Should it not be on horses that lost to drugged nags ?
No, this definition of fair -
"a fairer and more equal society"
It's not looking good for the GOP.
Even if Hillary doesn't run - and I think it just turns on her health - the Democrats have decent back-ups in Cuomo and Gillebrand. Looks like the GOP will struggle to find a nominee who could beat either, and if it's Clinton they may as well not show up.
Oh, and good luck getting into the EU or NATO if you renege on your debts.....
Carlotta, my love, you can't renege on debts that by the UK government's own logic can't possibly exist.
And I know you're struggling with this concept, but we don't need to "get into" the EU. We're in it. Ask your (former) heroine Lucinda Creighton - she'll bring you up to speed.
None of the horses in question were in training, TGOHF, but you raise a most relevant question.
The number of horses involved suggests the practice was widespread and has been going on for years. (The trainer in question has 'previous'.) This raises the question of how many stallions at stud owe their position to performances in the laboratory as much as the race track.
There must be a question mark now over the stud fees charged by many a bloodstock agent.
EDIT: For the avoidance of doubt, I should add that your own stud fees should remained unaltered.
Just following the Cammo campaign strategy, my love. He apparently thinks Scots will be persuaded to stay in the UK because of the vague possibility that North Korea might randomly decide to nuke Dundee in 2063.
I fear for Dublin - it's got no chance against Kim Jong-un without an "independent nuclear deterrent"
I see what you mean, Sean, that'll never work. Oh wait...
They may well have lost the centre ground already, which basically means they have lost the next election.
Let me introduce you to the apparently unwitting irony of what you've just said -
http://wingsoverscotland.com/alex-salmond-dictator-comparison-bingo/
http://www.newstatesman.com/economics/2013/04/politics-muddies-waters-scotland-and-pound
Because we're mature people, and understand that all this sound and fury is just the imperial mindset in its final death throes.
A better future is coming, Sean, and I truly hope and believe that you and your fellow sex memoirists will join me in making a contribution to it.
I doubt it.
If so, I'm afraid the SNP's fear and confusion will predominate. I really can't see Scots buying this shambles, much though I'd be happy if they did.