To unite the threads of architecture and Germany, see this
The Germans have simply abandoned the attempt to make attractive modernist town centres, realising we are somehow incapable. Instead they are now rebuilding entire medieval town centres, brick for brick, from scratch - the ones the RAF flattened. Frankfurt is an example
We should do exactly the same in the UK. I can think of a dozen cities/disrricts, off the bat, which would benefit enormously from such a scheme. Coventry, Exeter, Northampton, maybe Brum, Swansea, Plymouth, Derby, Clydebank, do it.
Architects will shriek and howl and moan about "pastiche" but given that they are congenitally unable to design anything better they can fuck off
Some of Bath too. It got the Baedeker treatment. And Portsmouth, especially the area to the south and east of the nasval dockyard. Hell, even Plymouth naval base could do with the restoration of the residential terrace - the south part is in part a mess from hasty wastime/postwar expansion over blitzed areas.
Haven't the Germans been doing it for some time? Or am I thinking of the Poles and Warsaw? But it's a nice approach.
I was at college in Portsmouth. If a nuclear bomb struck Portsmouth it would cause £100 million of improvements.
I don't know. I do like the old naval base, the remnants of Dickensian Pompey, and ditto of old Portsea, especially just north of the Round and Square Towers at the harnour entrance.
Edit: but if you are talking about net improvement then I wouldn;t differ. I think however that horrible car park has gone ...
The original, almost certainly unrealistic, budgeted cost of Holyrood was £40m. Donald Dewar (unionist) was responsible for the original estimate and subsequent budgetary control. Only when George Reid (national) was in charge of the budget, and threatened to pull the plug on the whole project, were costs finally under control and the building finally finished. Yet another example of why Scotland will be run better by nationalists than by useless unionists. Incidentally, as a Scottish Nationalist, I am proud of the Parliament building in a way that I could never be proud of the Colonial Monstrosity in Westminster.
Because, as we all know. the Scots were deeply squeamish about colonialism and preferred to stay home rather than get involved with the British Empire, in any way
The Scots that were involved with the British Empire, slavers, tobacco barons, etc, would have identified as British. Their successors are the likes of Alister Jack and Gordon Brown. Not Scots.
Most Scots of all classes prior to say 1970 and a clear majority till recently would have identified as Scottish and British. Current Scottish nationalism has been conjured up by the usual anti-other and resentment trickery of identity politics. There is a veneer of "civic nationalism" to bring on board some intellectuals and liberal middle class types. The unique element is a total downgrading and suppression of the fantastic achievements of Scots from the late 18th century onwards. As part of the union no other country contributed as much to modernity as Scotland. Starting with Hume, Smith, Hutton...
Talking of delusions some choice quotations from that superb work of Scottish fantasy, not Lanark by Alasdair Gray but the even more fantastical Scotland's future:
P 72 “”Negotiations will enable phasing and the financial consequences of transition to be agreed, planned and managed by all parties”.[NB Is that even English?]
P 113 “”There could be a shared Sterling Area prudential regulatory authority…Alternatively, this could be undertaken by the regulatory arm of a Scottish Monetary Institute working alongside the equivalent UK authority on a consistent and harmonised basis.”
p 350 “The Scottish government expects Scottish bonds to become firmly established as a low risk, gilt-edged investment backed by Scotland’s substantial oil reserves and a stable, high-skilled economy trading successfully within the EU with few uncertainties.”
I think that for sheer off the wall lunacy the last one is the winner but a case could be made for each.
See page 113 is what cracks me up.
No Nat has been able to tell me what happens if the Sterling Area PRA has been set different targets by an independent Scotland and RUK?
As for the SMI I can only assume someone who doesn't working in banking/financial services came up with that one.
If there's one thing Brexit has shown, harmonisation between two divorcing patterns is difficult on mundane things, just imagine what it will be like on the currency and/or interest rates.
As for Scottish bonds, well given how many Nats, including a former First Minister, talk about walking away with no debts, good luck with that one.
PS - If it gives you any consolation I have to read reports like Mr Gray's as my day job.
I confess that at the moment I am pretty inconsolable. 50% of my fellow countrymen who bothered to vote just endorsed the deputy first Minister at the time that that shite was written and published with public money. We are so far through the looking glass that I am genuinely not sure that there is a way back.
Face reality. Its the only solution.
Otherwise they will forever remain in denial, but once they face reality they need to start dealing with it.
With the greatest of respect Philip that is astoundingly naïve. What on earth have they ever said or done that makes you think that they could face up to reality?
At the moment Scotland has 8.2% of the population and generates 8% of the tax. That's not bad, the difference is something an independent Scotland could cope with. The problem is that we spend 9.2% of the money.
That requires a much more serious adaptation to our actual resources. There are also some minor technical issues such as the proportion of that 9.2% that is currently being borrowed, the proportion of that 8% that comes from our soon to depart financial services industry, what our border with England would look like etc but even putting those details to one side some sort of reality will have to be faced but necessarily before the decision is made.
One thing that is amusing is that just over a decade ago, when Labour were in power and then the early day's of Cameron's governments, Andy Burnham was one politician routinely laughed at by many. He was weak and many of my friends in Leigh wondered why he always then wore way, way too much make up on TV - he had a very offputting and odd appearance.
Flash forward now and as Mayor of Greater Manchester he seems the Labour King of the North, undisputed King across the Water, the Chosen One and whatever other superlatives you might want to throw at him.
Talking of delusions some choice quotations from that superb work of Scottish fantasy, not Lanark by Alasdair Gray but the even more fantastical Scotland's future:
P 72 “”Negotiations will enable phasing and the financial consequences of transition to be agreed, planned and managed by all parties”.[NB Is that even English?]
P 113 “”There could be a shared Sterling Area prudential regulatory authority…Alternatively, this could be undertaken by the regulatory arm of a Scottish Monetary Institute working alongside the equivalent UK authority on a consistent and harmonised basis.”
p 350 “The Scottish government expects Scottish bonds to become firmly established as a low risk, gilt-edged investment backed by Scotland’s substantial oil reserves and a stable, high-skilled economy trading successfully within the EU with few uncertainties.”
I think that for sheer off the wall lunacy the last one is the winner but a case could be made for each.
See page 113 is what cracks me up.
No Nat has been able to tell me what happens if the Sterling Area PRA has been set different targets by an independent Scotland and RUK?
As for the SMI I can only assume someone who doesn't working in banking/financial services came up with that one.
If there's one thing Brexit has shown, harmonisation between two divorcing patterns is difficult on mundane things, just imagine what it will be like on the currency and/or interest rates.
As for Scottish bonds, well given how many Nats, including a former First Minister, talk about walking away with no debts, good luck with that one.
PS - If it gives you any consolation I have to read reports like Mr Gray's as my day job.
I confess that at the moment I am pretty inconsolable. 50% of my fellow countrymen who bothered to vote just endorsed the deputy first Minister at the time that that shite was written and published with public money. We are so far through the looking glass that I am genuinely not sure that there is a way back.
That's the will of the people, vox populi, vox Dei.
As with Brexit you learn to live with it, whilst shaking your head and sighing internally.
Look on the bright side, Mrs Sturgeon and have set the standard for overturning the referendum to around 5/6 years.
If an independent Scotland turns out to be a mistake you can rejoin within a decade.
Won't that be subject to the agreement of the English ( and Welsh and Nornirons, if either of the last two are still around)? If an independent Scotland is a success, why rejoin the UK? If it isn't, why would the UK want to take on a failure?
The original, almost certainly unrealistic, budgeted cost of Holyrood was £40m. Donald Dewar (unionist) was responsible for the original estimate and subsequent budgetary control. Only when George Reid (national) was in charge of the budget, and threatened to pull the plug on the whole project, were costs finally under control and the building finally finished. Yet another example of why Scotland will be run better by nationalists than by useless unionists. Incidentally, as a Scottish Nationalist, I am proud of the Parliament building in a way that I could never be proud of the Colonial Monstrosity in Westminster.
Because, as we all know. the Scots were deeply squeamish about colonialism and preferred to stay home rather than get involved with the British Empire, in any way
The Scots that were involved with the British Empire, slavers, tobacco barons, etc, would have identified as British. Their successors are the likes of Alister Jack and Gordon Brown. Not Scots.
Most Scots of all classes prior to say 1970 and a clear majority till recently would have identified as Scottish and British. Current Scottish nationalism has been conjured up by the usual anti-other and resentment trickery of identity politics. There is a veneer of "civic nationalism" to bring on board some intellectuals and liberal middle class types. The unique element is a total downgrading and suppression of the fantastic achievements of Scots from the late 18th century onwards. As part of the union no other country contributed as much to modernity as Scotland. Starting with Hume, Smith, Hutton...
Must be some other Hume and Smith and Playfair whose statues have recently been put up and Hutton who has had a memorial garden put up in recent years. Maybe footie players?
Most of the buildings have now been demolished or refurbed but not Holyrood
Fascinating list. I agree with the public in every case
The only one I might have saved is that car park in Newcastle. Sometimes Brutalism can work, and be exhilarating in its monstrous and insulting ugliness.
Trouble is, it should be on some industrial estate or in Thames dockyards, not in the middle of a rather noble city like Newcastle (which, unlike too many British cities, has a coherent and sometimes handsome architectural plan)
Also the supermarket. I like that. But I see it has been kept. Good
Brutalism seems to work with the Barbican.
Park Hill, Sheffield, has been renovated though the brutalised shell remains. It's a stunning success.
Talking of delusions some choice quotations from that superb work of Scottish fantasy, not Lanark by Alasdair Gray but the even more fantastical Scotland's future:
P 72 “”Negotiations will enable phasing and the financial consequences of transition to be agreed, planned and managed by all parties”.[NB Is that even English?]
P 113 “”There could be a shared Sterling Area prudential regulatory authority…Alternatively, this could be undertaken by the regulatory arm of a Scottish Monetary Institute working alongside the equivalent UK authority on a consistent and harmonised basis.”
p 350 “The Scottish government expects Scottish bonds to become firmly established as a low risk, gilt-edged investment backed by Scotland’s substantial oil reserves and a stable, high-skilled economy trading successfully within the EU with few uncertainties.”
I think that for sheer off the wall lunacy the last one is the winner but a case could be made for each.
See page 113 is what cracks me up.
No Nat has been able to tell me what happens if the Sterling Area PRA has been set different targets by an independent Scotland and RUK?
As for the SMI I can only assume someone who doesn't working in banking/financial services came up with that one.
If there's one thing Brexit has shown, harmonisation between two divorcing patterns is difficult on mundane things, just imagine what it will be like on the currency and/or interest rates.
As for Scottish bonds, well given how many Nats, including a former First Minister, talk about walking away with no debts, good luck with that one.
PS - If it gives you any consolation I have to read reports like Mr Gray's as my day job.
I confess that at the moment I am pretty inconsolable. 50% of my fellow countrymen who bothered to vote just endorsed the deputy first Minister at the time that that shite was written and published with public money. We are so far through the looking glass that I am genuinely not sure that there is a way back.
That's the will of the people, vox populi, vox Dei.
As with Brexit you learn to live with it, whilst shaking your head and sighing internally.
Look on the bright side, Mrs Sturgeon and have set the standard for overturning the referendum to around 5/6 years.
If an independent Scotland turns out to be a mistake you can rejoin within a decade.
Won't that be subject to the agreement of the English ( and Welsh and Nornirons, if either of the last two are still around)? If an independent Scotland is a success, why rejoin the UK? If it isn't, why would the UK want to take on a failure?
For the LOLZ.
Plus, a true victory is to make your enemy see they were wrong to oppose you in the first place. To force them to acknowledge your greatness.
More people think Boris tells the truth???? This is so over.
The first five question are devastating for Starmer.
"Stands up for the interests of the UK" - 52% over 25%. More than two to one
"Can build a strong economy" - 50% over 25%. Two to one
For the first time, I wonder if Sir Kir Royale can survive til the next GE
Perhaps if they had asked 'stands up for the interests of the Palestinians' SKS might have won one?
But serially, if 34% of people think Boris is in better physical shape than SKS, then there are a lot of people who are just answering Boris to eventing, probably because they like him more.
Talking of delusions some choice quotations from that superb work of Scottish fantasy, not Lanark by Alasdair Gray but the even more fantastical Scotland's future:
P 72 “”Negotiations will enable phasing and the financial consequences of transition to be agreed, planned and managed by all parties”.[NB Is that even English?]
P 113 “”There could be a shared Sterling Area prudential regulatory authority…Alternatively, this could be undertaken by the regulatory arm of a Scottish Monetary Institute working alongside the equivalent UK authority on a consistent and harmonised basis.”
p 350 “The Scottish government expects Scottish bonds to become firmly established as a low risk, gilt-edged investment backed by Scotland’s substantial oil reserves and a stable, high-skilled economy trading successfully within the EU with few uncertainties.”
I think that for sheer off the wall lunacy the last one is the winner but a case could be made for each.
See page 113 is what cracks me up.
No Nat has been able to tell me what happens if the Sterling Area PRA has been set different targets by an independent Scotland and RUK?
As for the SMI I can only assume someone who doesn't working in banking/financial services came up with that one.
If there's one thing Brexit has shown, harmonisation between two divorcing patterns is difficult on mundane things, just imagine what it will be like on the currency and/or interest rates.
As for Scottish bonds, well given how many Nats, including a former First Minister, talk about walking away with no debts, good luck with that one.
PS - If it gives you any consolation I have to read reports like Mr Gray's as my day job.
I confess that at the moment I am pretty inconsolable. 50% of my fellow countrymen who bothered to vote just endorsed the deputy first Minister at the time that that shite was written and published with public money. We are so far through the looking glass that I am genuinely not sure that there is a way back.
Face reality. Its the only solution.
Otherwise they will forever remain in denial, but once they face reality they need to start dealing with it.
With the greatest of respect Philip that is astoundingly naïve. What on earth have they ever said or done that makes you think that they could face up to reality?
At the moment Scotland has 8.2% of the population and generates 8% of the tax. That's not bad, the difference is something an independent Scotland could cope with. The problem is that we spend 9.2% of the money.
That requires a much more serious adaptation to our actual resources. There are also some minor technical issues such as the proportion of that 9.2% that is currently being borrowed, the proportion of that 8% that comes from our soon to depart financial services industry, what our border with England would look like etc but even putting those details to one side some sort of reality will have to be faced but necessarily before the decision is made.
But Scotland is rich in water and natural resources. Bottle it up and sell it to the English.
That really is how far past reality we’ve got with nats on Twitter. Presumably the arguments are so farcical they’re most likely Russian bots
And there is no chance Sturgeon is going to present the “reality” of the process or changes that need to be made
Aaron Bastani @AaronBastani · 1m Most of the British media and political class mocked Labour members when they waved Palestine flags at party conference. Worse still some imputed that was racist.
They don’t care less about what is happening tonight.
It's just weird man — I don't understand why the left is so obsessed with Palestine
The original, almost certainly unrealistic, budgeted cost of Holyrood was £40m. Donald Dewar (unionist) was responsible for the original estimate and subsequent budgetary control. Only when George Reid (national) was in charge of the budget, and threatened to pull the plug on the whole project, were costs finally under control and the building finally finished. Yet another example of why Scotland will be run better by nationalists than by useless unionists. Incidentally, as a Scottish Nationalist, I am proud of the Parliament building in a way that I could never be proud of the Colonial Monstrosity in Westminster.
Because, as we all know. the Scots were deeply squeamish about colonialism and preferred to stay home rather than get involved with the British Empire, in any way
The Scots that were involved with the British Empire, slavers, tobacco barons, etc, would have identified as British. Their successors are the likes of Alister Jack and Gordon Brown. Not Scots.
Most Scots of all classes prior to say 1970 and a clear majority till recently would have identified as Scottish and British. Current Scottish nationalism has been conjured up by the usual anti-other and resentment trickery of identity politics. There is a veneer of "civic nationalism" to bring on board some intellectuals and liberal middle class types. The unique element is a total downgrading and suppression of the fantastic achievements of Scots from the late 18th century onwards. As part of the union no other country contributed as much to modernity as Scotland. Starting with Hume, Smith, Hutton...
Must be some other Hume and Smith and Playfair whose statues have recently been put up and Hutton who has had a memorial garden put up in recent years. Maybe footie players?
I'm referring to SNP nationalist narrative and the slant in history teaching.
Sometimes when a political party is split on some very contentious issue, the best way to unite & move forward, is by picking someone from the short end of the stick BUT who is also reasonably acceptable to the other side.
Two examples:
> Irish Parliamentary Party, predominant in Ireland, was deeply split in 1890 (to put it mildly) after it's leader, Charles Steward Parnell, was found (via divorce case) to be having an affair with the wife of one of his MPs. In the subsequent donnybrook the Parnellites were a minority compared to the anti-Parnellites backed by the Catholic Church Ten years later, the Party reunited (mostly) behind John Redmond, who had stuck by Parnell.
> During WW1 the Liberal Party of Canada was split over the issue of conscription. Which was supported strongly in English Canada but NOT in Quebec. Pro-conscription Anglo Liberals joined a coalition under the Conservatives, deserting their former leader Sir Wilfrid Laurier. After the war, the Liberals reunited, under one of the few Anglo Libs who stood by Laurier, namely William Lyon Mackenzie King. Who led the Party and dominated Canadian politics right through WW2.
In both cases, the minority starting out was more committed, over time, than the majority faction. And many in the original majority had second thoughts about the whole thing. Thus were willing and able to unite under a new leader who did NOT reflect where they'd started from, but who was acceptable from where they ended up.
EDIT - The British Liberal Party had somewhat similar split, however efforts to resolve it proved fruitless, in large measure because BOTH leaders of the two factions, Herbert Asquith and David Lloyd George, were still on the scene. PLUS the rise of Labour, which the Liberal split facilitated.
Aaron Bastani @AaronBastani · 1m Most of the British media and political class mocked Labour members when they waved Palestine flags at party conference. Worse still some imputed that was racist.
They don’t care less about what is happening tonight.
It's just weird man — I don't understand why the left is so obsessed with Palestine
To unite the threads of architecture and Germany, see this
The Germans have simply abandoned the attempt to make attractive modernist town centres, realising we are somehow incapable. Instead they are now rebuilding entire medieval town centres, brick for brick, from scratch - the ones the RAF flattened. Frankfurt is an example
We should do exactly the same in the UK. I can think of a dozen cities/disrricts, off the bat, which would benefit enormously from such a scheme. Coventry, Exeter, Northampton, maybe Brum, Swansea, Plymouth, Derby, Clydebank, do it.
Architects will shriek and howl and moan about "pastiche" but given that they are congenitally unable to design anything better they can fuck off
Some of Bath too. It got the Baedeker treatment. And Portsmouth, especially the area to the south and east of the nasval dockyard. Hell, even Plymouth naval base could do with the restoration of the residential terrace - the south part is in part a mess from hasty wastime/postwar expansion over blitzed areas.
Haven't the Germans been doing it for some time? Or am I thinking of the Poles and Warsaw? But it's a nice approach.
The Poles have certainly been doing it for decades, to great success, also the Baltics, maybe Czechia?
We also do it in a quiet way. Half of the Nash Terraces were rebuilt from scratch after the war - unbelievably, there was a Labour Party plan to demolish them all - Churchill supposedly intervened.
They are still being rebuilt now, half of Park Crescent was torn down and replaced - identically - in the last few years
To my mind the Nash Terraces constitute the most beautiful ensemble of urban domestic architecture in the world. They are certainly successful, and desirable. You can buy a whole one for £185 million
But we don't have to do lavish - just do it like Frankfurt. They rebuilt an entire "old town" city centre for £180m. We should deffo copy
That reminds me, Bristol/Clifton had some proper rebuilding too. Especially along Park Street. The University hall was rebuilt IIRC. I had reason to look into the area a few years back and was surprised how much rebuilding as before - at least externally - there had been.
And Clifton is a lovely and much-desired place to live.
I can't think of a single policy which would so instantly improve Britain and British public life. Rebuild our cities as they were: in about 1820-1860. Give every city a handsome old town, as they once had. People will flock, urban life will blossom, everyone loves funny old alleys and crooked old houses.
So it's fake, who gives a fuck. Holyrood is fake, it's meant to be some boulder covered with twigs, moss and Glaswegian puke - whatever
Difference is, we know old towns WORK and people love them
More people think Boris tells the truth???? This is so over.
That's shocking.
It's not, it is something I flagged up on here back a while back.
Let that sink in, Starmer trails on to tell the truth metric to the twice sacked for lying, serial adulterer, Boris Johnson man who said no Prime Minister could put a border down the Irish Sea then did exactly that.
Talking of delusions some choice quotations from that superb work of Scottish fantasy, not Lanark by Alasdair Gray but the even more fantastical Scotland's future:
P 72 “”Negotiations will enable phasing and the financial consequences of transition to be agreed, planned and managed by all parties”.[NB Is that even English?]
P 113 “”There could be a shared Sterling Area prudential regulatory authority…Alternatively, this could be undertaken by the regulatory arm of a Scottish Monetary Institute working alongside the equivalent UK authority on a consistent and harmonised basis.”
p 350 “The Scottish government expects Scottish bonds to become firmly established as a low risk, gilt-edged investment backed by Scotland’s substantial oil reserves and a stable, high-skilled economy trading successfully within the EU with few uncertainties.”
I think that for sheer off the wall lunacy the last one is the winner but a case could be made for each.
See page 113 is what cracks me up.
No Nat has been able to tell me what happens if the Sterling Area PRA has been set different targets by an independent Scotland and RUK?
As for the SMI I can only assume someone who doesn't working in banking/financial services came up with that one.
If there's one thing Brexit has shown, harmonisation between two divorcing patterns is difficult on mundane things, just imagine what it will be like on the currency and/or interest rates.
As for Scottish bonds, well given how many Nats, including a former First Minister, talk about walking away with no debts, good luck with that one.
PS - If it gives you any consolation I have to read reports like Mr Gray's as my day job.
I confess that at the moment I am pretty inconsolable. 50% of my fellow countrymen who bothered to vote just endorsed the deputy first Minister at the time that that shite was written and published with public money. We are so far through the looking glass that I am genuinely not sure that there is a way back.
Face reality. Its the only solution.
Otherwise they will forever remain in denial, but once they face reality they need to start dealing with it.
With the greatest of respect Philip that is astoundingly naïve. What on earth have they ever said or done that makes you think that they could face up to reality?
At the moment Scotland has 8.2% of the population and generates 8% of the tax. That's not bad, the difference is something an independent Scotland could cope with. The problem is that we spend 9.2% of the money.
That requires a much more serious adaptation to our actual resources. There are also some minor technical issues such as the proportion of that 9.2% that is currently being borrowed, the proportion of that 8% that comes from our soon to depart financial services industry, what our border with England would look like etc but even putting those details to one side some sort of reality will have to be faced but necessarily before the decision is made.
I think they could face up to reality because in the end reality always finds a way.
Oh indeed that probably won't be before the decision is made, the decision will need to be made. Then in the cold light of day after the decision is made will reality be confronted. By then it will be too late, but then and only then will reality be tackled.
Trying to postpone the day of reckoning on a never-never promise to keep ratcheting up more 'cohesion' funds is no alternative.
Regarding Burnham. No borough voting as previously. However, there is turnout data. Largest in Trafford, Stockport and Bury. (5 out of 7 Tory MP's). Lowest in Salford, Manchester and Wigan. (9 out of 10 Labour MP's). He wins votes from folk who don't vote Labour. Another mayor used to do the same for a different Party.
They’re not wrong. It’s shockingly bad. An obscene insult to one of the most serenely beautiful cities in the world. How did it happen? How did it cost so much???
The amazing thing is that, despite costing £400m, it manages to look cheap. Like a po-mo Premier Inn on the outskirts of Basingstoke
The worst public building erected in the UK - ever??
They needed something to make what happened inside look good. It didn't work.
And in fairness with the building of the turd it is probably only the second ugliest building in Edinburgh.
I thought it cost more than 400m
I think that the official figure was £414.4m. Not even worth 1% of that.
It has a negative value. Because it is actively ugly, and distressing to look at, so it detracts from the cityscape of lovely Edinburgh, and harms its reputation.
And every day someone looks at it and winces, and their day is made just a little bit worse. It is bad for humankind
Someone should write a book about how a building this obviously horrible and ugly ends up getting built, and at such vast expense, to boot. It's the architectural equivalent of one of those mahoosively expensive Hollywood movies that make about $3. Like Heaven's Gate. Or the Postman by Kevin Costner.
Unlike those movies, Holyrood will never gain a cult following and it will always be there in your face to insult Edinburgh folk, until it is demolished in a fit of honest shame
The SNP wanted it in the old Royal High School high up on Calton Hill, but that was too uppity for the Unionists and it had to be put down in the valley next to Holyroodhouse [the Palace].
So how does that explain why it's so (apparently) god awful?
It doesn't. But it does explain the location.
The primary architect did die half way through designing it (if you see what I mean) but I'm not sure how much impact that had.
Location & architect change likely upped the price tag, but price tag was probably gonna be stratospheric regardless.
Funny thing was there was a superb Enlightenment Greek Revival building lying empty. But oh no, having it on the hill was too much of a nationalist shibboleth and no the SNP wouldn't be listened to when they wanted to put it there.
That’s a good looking building. Westminster were fools to turn it down.
Still not found a use.
I am not sure personally that Nicola's ego would have fitted inside it.
It is surely quite astonishing that a planning department can impose such restrictions on the use of a building that it remains empty for more than 50 years. It is a beautiful building on a great site but what a waste.
It is to go on the market. There is a plan to move St Mary's Music School to the Royal High.
Lambeth council leader resigned after 1 year in charge
In both Haringey and Ealing the council leaders have been ousted by their council group tonight. The outgoing leader in Rochdale was also defeated in the internal meeting yesterday.
The council leader in Hull (who is over 70) announced he wouldn't put forward his name at the upcoming meeting.
Leaders survived the internal challenge in Newcastle (30 to 22 votes) and Coventry (30 to 9)
In Oldham, where the council leader lost his seat on Thursday, Arooj Shah is the new council leader.
Talking of delusions some choice quotations from that superb work of Scottish fantasy, not Lanark by Alasdair Gray but the even more fantastical Scotland's future:
P 72 “”Negotiations will enable phasing and the financial consequences of transition to be agreed, planned and managed by all parties”.[NB Is that even English?]
P 113 “”There could be a shared Sterling Area prudential regulatory authority…Alternatively, this could be undertaken by the regulatory arm of a Scottish Monetary Institute working alongside the equivalent UK authority on a consistent and harmonised basis.”
p 350 “The Scottish government expects Scottish bonds to become firmly established as a low risk, gilt-edged investment backed by Scotland’s substantial oil reserves and a stable, high-skilled economy trading successfully within the EU with few uncertainties.”
I think that for sheer off the wall lunacy the last one is the winner but a case could be made for each.
See page 113 is what cracks me up.
No Nat has been able to tell me what happens if the Sterling Area PRA has been set different targets by an independent Scotland and RUK?
As for the SMI I can only assume someone who doesn't working in banking/financial services came up with that one.
If there's one thing Brexit has shown, harmonisation between two divorcing patterns is difficult on mundane things, just imagine what it will be like on the currency and/or interest rates.
As for Scottish bonds, well given how many Nats, including a former First Minister, talk about walking away with no debts, good luck with that one.
PS - If it gives you any consolation I have to read reports like Mr Gray's as my day job.
I confess that at the moment I am pretty inconsolable. 50% of my fellow countrymen who bothered to vote just endorsed the deputy first Minister at the time that that shite was written and published with public money. We are so far through the looking glass that I am genuinely not sure that there is a way back.
That's the will of the people, vox populi, vox Dei.
As with Brexit you learn to live with it, whilst shaking your head and sighing internally.
Look on the bright side, Mrs Sturgeon and have set the standard for overturning the referendum to around 5/6 years.
If an independent Scotland turns out to be a mistake you can rejoin within a decade.
Won't that be subject to the agreement of the English ( and Welsh and Nornirons, if either of the last two are still around)? If an independent Scotland is a success, why rejoin the UK? If it isn't, why would the UK want to take on a failure?
For the LOLZ.
Plus, a true victory is to make your enemy see they were wrong to oppose you in the first place. To force them to acknowledge your greatness.
Have you Cameronians faced up to that yet, or have you all got shepherds’ huts with which to shut out the nasty old world?
The original, almost certainly unrealistic, budgeted cost of Holyrood was £40m. Donald Dewar (unionist) was responsible for the original estimate and subsequent budgetary control. Only when George Reid (national) was in charge of the budget, and threatened to pull the plug on the whole project, were costs finally under control and the building finally finished. Yet another example of why Scotland will be run better by nationalists than by useless unionists. Incidentally, as a Scottish Nationalist, I am proud of the Parliament building in a way that I could never be proud of the Colonial Monstrosity in Westminster.
Because, as we all know. the Scots were deeply squeamish about colonialism and preferred to stay home rather than get involved with the British Empire, in any way
The Scots that were involved with the British Empire, slavers, tobacco barons, etc, would have identified as British. Their successors are the likes of Alister Jack and Gordon Brown. Not Scots.
More people think Boris tells the truth???? This is so over.
That's shocking.
It's not, it is something I flagged up on here back a while back.
Let that sink in, Starmer trails on to tell the truth metric to the twice sacked for lying, serial adulterer, Boris Johnson man who said no Prime Minister could put a border down the Irish Sea then did exactly that.
We want to tell ourselves that BoJo is no worse than other politicians, because the alternative (that we've voted for a huge lying shyster- whether because we were conned or because we thought he was a liar on our side) is too awful to contemplate.
This might not end quickly, but it definitely won't end well.
Talking of delusions some choice quotations from that superb work of Scottish fantasy, not Lanark by Alasdair Gray but the even more fantastical Scotland's future:
P 72 “”Negotiations will enable phasing and the financial consequences of transition to be agreed, planned and managed by all parties”.[NB Is that even English?]
P 113 “”There could be a shared Sterling Area prudential regulatory authority…Alternatively, this could be undertaken by the regulatory arm of a Scottish Monetary Institute working alongside the equivalent UK authority on a consistent and harmonised basis.”
p 350 “The Scottish government expects Scottish bonds to become firmly established as a low risk, gilt-edged investment backed by Scotland’s substantial oil reserves and a stable, high-skilled economy trading successfully within the EU with few uncertainties.”
I think that for sheer off the wall lunacy the last one is the winner but a case could be made for each.
See page 113 is what cracks me up.
No Nat has been able to tell me what happens if the Sterling Area PRA has been set different targets by an independent Scotland and RUK?
As for the SMI I can only assume someone who doesn't working in banking/financial services came up with that one.
If there's one thing Brexit has shown, harmonisation between two divorcing patterns is difficult on mundane things, just imagine what it will be like on the currency and/or interest rates.
As for Scottish bonds, well given how many Nats, including a former First Minister, talk about walking away with no debts, good luck with that one.
PS - If it gives you any consolation I have to read reports like Mr Gray's as my day job.
I confess that at the moment I am pretty inconsolable. 50% of my fellow countrymen who bothered to vote just endorsed the deputy first Minister at the time that that shite was written and published with public money. We are so far through the looking glass that I am genuinely not sure that there is a way back.
That's the will of the people, vox populi, vox Dei.
As with Brexit you learn to live with it, whilst shaking your head and sighing internally.
Look on the bright side, Mrs Sturgeon and have set the standard for overturning the referendum to around 5/6 years.
If an independent Scotland turns out to be a mistake you can rejoin within a decade.
Won't that be subject to the agreement of the English ( and Welsh and Nornirons, if either of the last two are still around)? If an independent Scotland is a success, why rejoin the UK? If it isn't, why would the UK want to take on a failure?
For the LOLZ.
Plus, a true victory is to make your enemy see they were wrong to oppose you in the first place. To force them to acknowledge your greatness.
I know you're being tongue in cheek, but to be clear, Scotland is not my enemy. I don't mind whether it stays or goes. I like Scotland and wish it all the best, whatever it does. It ought to be able to function as an independent nation a la Ireland or Norway, though it will take some serious readjustment in the short term to do so, and it is not clear its leaders are willing to make that readjustment. I'm going through a phase of emotional unionism, though I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to do it is a one-nation/one-state solution, and the opportunity to get that right probably passed two or three hundred years ago, or maybe a thousand years ago. Devolution has been a failure, and I don't buy any of the alternatives on the table which largely seem to amount to keeping the union together by always doing what the Scots want while giving them lots of money. So realistically, I think this is the end of the road.
However, an odd thought occurs to me: my understanding is that the new state is to be citizen'd by its inhabitants, those who were born there, those with a parent who was born there (including me) and those with a grandparent who was born there. It strikes me as not unlikely that there will be more Scottish citizens living in rUK than in Scotland. Which could make for some interesting election results.
More people think Boris tells the truth???? This is so over.
That's shocking.
It's not, it is something I flagged up on here back a while back.
Let that sink in, Starmer trails on to tell the truth metric to the twice sacked for lying, serial adulterer, Boris Johnson man who said no Prime Minister could put a border down the Irish Sea then did exactly that.
We want to tell ourselves that BoJo is no worse than other politicians, because the alternative (that we've voted for a huge lying shyster- whether because we were conned or because we thought he was a liar on our side) is too awful to contemplate.
This might not end quickly, but it definitely won't end well.
Kier's problem with honesty is that he just seems so insincere. It's his lawyerly manner. You just instinctively distrust him. He could tell you he'd had toast and marmalade for breakfast and you'd think 'where's he going with this? What's he up to? What's he trying to make me think?'
More people think Boris tells the truth???? This is so over.
That's shocking.
It's not, it is something I flagged up on here back a while back.
Let that sink in, Starmer trails on to tell the truth metric to the twice sacked for lying, serial adulterer, Boris Johnson man who said no Prime Minister could put a border down the Irish Sea then did exactly that.
We want to tell ourselves that BoJo is no worse than other politicians, because the alternative (that we've voted for a huge lying shyster- whether because we were conned or because we thought he was a liar on our side) is too awful to contemplate.
This might not end quickly, but it definitely won't end well.
Kier's problem with honesty is that he just seems so insincere. It's his lawyerly manner. You just instinctively distrust him. He could tell you he'd had toast and marmalade for breakfast and you'd think 'where's he going with this? What's he up to? What's he trying to make me think?'
There's a chunk of that, sure. And only a fool would expect a lawyer or a politician to willingly tell us the whole truth. But in the past, facts might well have been spun, but there was some grounding in reality (even the notorious misleadings like "45 minutes" or "£350 million pounds a week". Neither of those statements was an accurate reflection of reality in the whole, but they were anchored in something.) And the rule of the game was that, if the questioner found the right question, the questioned had to give a truthful answer, or else.
Boris, on the other hand, makes things up. He does it with confidence and brio, and even the occasional sly nod and wink that we shouldn't take what he says seriously. But he makes stuff up and tells people what they want to hear. And at some level, we love him for it.
But there are two problems with that. One is that lies only work for a while. Reality always wins in the end. The other is that Johnson has poisoned the well for everyone else. Like you say, we don't trust what Starmer says, because we take it as read that politicians lie. But the flat-out lie (as opposed to the misleading half-truth) is really rare in British politics... or it was until Johnson came along.
More people think Boris tells the truth???? This is so over.
That's shocking.
It's not, it is something I flagged up on here back a while back.
Let that sink in, Starmer trails on to tell the truth metric to the twice sacked for lying, serial adulterer, Boris Johnson man who said no Prime Minister could put a border down the Irish Sea then did exactly that.
We want to tell ourselves that BoJo is no worse than other politicians, because the alternative (that we've voted for a huge lying shyster- whether because we were conned or because we thought he was a liar on our side) is too awful to contemplate.
This might not end quickly, but it definitely won't end well.
Kier's problem with honesty is that he just seems so insincere. It's his lawyerly manner. You just instinctively distrust him. He could tell you he'd had toast and marmalade for breakfast and you'd think 'where's he going with this? What's he up to? What's he trying to make me think?'
There's a chunk of that, sure. And only a fool would expect a lawyer or a politician to willingly tell us the whole truth. But in the past, facts might well have been spun, but there was some grounding in reality (even the notorious misleadings like "45 minutes" or "£350 million pounds a week". Neither of those statements was an accurate reflection of reality in the whole, but they were anchored in something.) And the rule of the game was that, if the questioner found the right question, the questioned had to give a truthful answer, or else.
Boris, on the other hand, makes things up. He does it with confidence and brio, and even the occasional sly nod and wink that we shouldn't take what he says seriously. But he makes stuff up and tells people what they want to hear. And at some level, we love him for it.
But there are two problems with that. One is that lies only work for a while. Reality always wins in the end. The other is that Johnson has poisoned the well for everyone else. Like you say, we don't trust what Starmer says, because we take it as read that politicians lie. But the flat-out lie (as opposed to the misleading half-truth) is really rare in British politics... or it was until Johnson came along.
It's a legacy of sorts, I suppose.
Hm - Tony Blair was the pioneer of the flat out lie, IIRC. (Something to do with Bernie Ecclestone - seems remarkably dull in retrospect. Other more dramatic lies came along later.)
I don't think Boris has poinsoned the well. There were lies and liars before. We just appreciate being lied to entertainingly.
They’re not wrong. It’s shockingly bad. An obscene insult to one of the most serenely beautiful cities in the world. How did it happen? How did it cost so much???
The amazing thing is that, despite costing £400m, it manages to look cheap. Like a po-mo Premier Inn on the outskirts of Basingstoke
The worst public building erected in the UK - ever??
They needed something to make what happened inside look good. It didn't work.
And in fairness with the building of the turd it is probably only the second ugliest building in Edinburgh.
I thought it cost more than 400m
I think that the official figure was £414.4m. Not even worth 1% of that.
It has a negative value. Because it is actively ugly, and distressing to look at, so it detracts from the cityscape of lovely Edinburgh, and harms its reputation.
And every day someone looks at it and winces, and their day is made just a little bit worse. It is bad for humankind
Someone should write a book about how a building this obviously horrible and ugly ends up getting built, and at such vast expense, to boot. It's the architectural equivalent of one of those mahoosively expensive Hollywood movies that make about $3. Like Heaven's Gate. Or the Postman by Kevin Costner.
Unlike those movies, Holyrood will never gain a cult following and it will always be there in your face to insult Edinburgh folk, until it is demolished in a fit of honest shame
The SNP wanted it in the old Royal High School high up on Calton Hill, but that was too uppity for the Unionists and it had to be put down in the valley next to Holyroodhouse [the Palace].
So how does that explain why it's so (apparently) god awful?
It doesn't. But it does explain the location.
The primary architect did die half way through designing it (if you see what I mean) but I'm not sure how much impact that had.
Had huge impact on the cost. He died before he drew up the final plans. He;d delivered the vision (so we were still goig to end up with an awful looking building) but he hadn't finished the "turning the vision into an actual working building" when he popped his clogs.
given he was a massive award winning architect the people who came along to finish the job were too scared to make the necessary changes. As a result everyone struggled to build a basically impossible design thus the massive cost overrun and various ergonomic problems of actually using it as a parliament.
He certainly had a 'distinct' style - that's a market in Barcelona
It looks like a load of deckchairs got picked up in a wind storm and ended up stuck to the building.
That's an unflattering photo of what is actually a pretty great building, inside and out (Santa Caterina market).
By contrast I think photos of Holyrood don't quite do justice to how terrible it is. It would probably be tolerable in a Barcelona setting, but among all that stone in Edinburgh it just looks abysmal.
Conservative 45% (+5) Labour 34% (-4) Liberal Democrat 8% (+1) Scottish National Party 4% (–) Green 5% (–) Reform UK 2% (-1)
Changes +/- 3 May
But, the wallpaper?
Boris should photoshop an pic of him plastering the walls of No10 with those opinion poll graphs!
See? You just revel in Tory success and Labour failure. This is (obvs) not due to your concern for the low paid. So what gives? Tell me.
Your comment is super interesting and indicative of why Lab will find it so difficult to win back lost voters.
You simply cannot comprehend that the Cons are concerned about the poor. You genuinely think that it is only Lab that can care and that the Cons almost by definition don't or can't.
That is the mountain you guys have got to climb. Good luck.
I don't think that actually. This is bespoke for @isam.
Seems everybody bar him is answering.
I kind of revel in it, because I have said for ages that Boris would swat Sir Keir away when it came to election time, and it seems to be the case. I used to vote Labour, I voted Tory last time, so I am not loyal to any party. Detatching myself from it I just think it would be funny if he pretended he'd wallpapered Downing St with opinion polls showing it didnt concern the public
Well that's always a thrill, being proved right. But this aside, now that Brexit is done and Free Movement is over, why are you - a person of the left and who used to vote Labour - still so anti-Labour?
This is what I'm interested to hear.
Well I am not necessarily anti Labour forever. I am anti the current set up because they are headed by someone who fought tooth and nail to prevent the Leave vote being delivered between 2016 and 2019. I don't like corporate Labour, which is what I see them as at the moment. I would be more inclined to vote for them under Corbyn's leadership. I disagree with him on things too, but at least those lefties have passion. FWIW I dont really think Boris cares that much about the things that concern me, and he used Leave as a vehicle to get the Tory leadership, but it's not a perfect world, and for the moment he is the one who is doing what he said he would, which is what I voted for. I liked 2012-2015 UKIP the best, and there were a lot of working class Labour people in that motley crew
I guess, in short, I am anti Labour because they sold out on what I thought they were there for, which is standing up for British workers. I thought they were something they weren't.
Of course, there is the other element, which is I like betting and working out bets from data, and everything in that regard has always pointed me in the direction of Starmer being a complete dud as leader, whether I like him or not. I think he is dull & useless, and has almost no chance of success. I argued that case quite strongly on here for a long while to no end of disagreement, and so when people try to say he is doing better than Boris on this and that (net ratings for instance) I argue my case, which makes it look like I am anti Labour but really its just pro my betting argument
Thanks for reply.
Standing up for "British workers." That's the key phrase here. Specifically the balance. Is it mainly because they're British or mainly because they're workers?, ie how much nationalism is in there, just a bit or an awful lot? - TBC one day.
Comments
Edit: but if you are talking about net improvement then I wouldn;t differ. I think however that horrible car park has gone ...
At the moment Scotland has 8.2% of the population and generates 8% of the tax. That's not bad, the difference is something an independent Scotland could cope with. The problem is that we spend 9.2% of the money.
That requires a much more serious adaptation to our actual resources. There are also some minor technical issues such as the proportion of that 9.2% that is currently being borrowed, the proportion of that 8% that comes from our soon to depart financial services industry, what our border with England would look like etc but even putting those details to one side some sort of reality will have to be faced but necessarily before the decision is made.
Flash forward now and as Mayor of Greater Manchester he seems the Labour King of the North, undisputed King across the Water, the Chosen One and whatever other superlatives you might want to throw at him.
Quite a turnaround in reputation!
If an independent Scotland is a success, why rejoin the UK?
If it isn't, why would the UK want to take on a failure?
Plus, a true victory is to make your enemy see they were wrong to oppose you in the first place. To force them to acknowledge your greatness.
But serially, if 34% of people think Boris is in better physical shape than SKS, then there are a lot of people who are just answering Boris to eventing, probably because they like him more.
That really is how far past reality we’ve got with nats on Twitter. Presumably the arguments are so farcical they’re most likely Russian bots
And there is no chance Sturgeon is going to present the “reality” of the process or changes that need to be made
Two examples:
> Irish Parliamentary Party, predominant in Ireland, was deeply split in 1890 (to put it mildly) after it's leader, Charles Steward Parnell, was found (via divorce case) to be having an affair with the wife of one of his MPs. In the subsequent donnybrook the Parnellites were a minority compared to the anti-Parnellites backed by the Catholic Church Ten years later, the Party reunited (mostly) behind John Redmond, who had stuck by Parnell.
> During WW1 the Liberal Party of Canada was split over the issue of conscription. Which was supported strongly in English Canada but NOT in Quebec. Pro-conscription Anglo Liberals joined a coalition under the Conservatives, deserting their former leader Sir Wilfrid Laurier. After the war, the Liberals reunited, under one of the few Anglo Libs who stood by Laurier, namely William Lyon Mackenzie King. Who led the Party and dominated Canadian politics right through WW2.
In both cases, the minority starting out was more committed, over time, than the majority faction. And many in the original majority had second thoughts about the whole thing. Thus were willing and able to unite under a new leader who did NOT reflect where they'd started from, but who was acceptable from where they ended up.
EDIT - The British Liberal Party had somewhat similar split, however efforts to resolve it proved fruitless, in large measure because BOTH leaders of the two factions, Herbert Asquith and David Lloyd George, were still on the scene. PLUS the rise of Labour, which the Liberal split facilitated.
I can't think of a single policy which would so instantly improve Britain and British public life. Rebuild our cities as they were: in about 1820-1860. Give every city a handsome old town, as they once had. People will flock, urban life will blossom, everyone loves funny old alleys and crooked old houses.
So it's fake, who gives a fuck. Holyrood is fake, it's meant to be some boulder covered with twigs, moss and Glaswegian puke - whatever
Difference is, we know old towns WORK and people love them
Let that sink in, Starmer trails on to tell the truth metric to the twice sacked for lying, serial adulterer, Boris Johnson man who said no Prime Minister could put a border down the Irish Sea then did exactly that.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/04/04/a-reminder-starmer-needs-a-net-gain-of-124-seats-at-the-next-ge-to-win-a-majority/
Oh indeed that probably won't be before the decision is made, the decision will need to be made. Then in the cold light of day after the decision is made will reality be confronted. By then it will be too late, but then and only then will reality be tackled.
Trying to postpone the day of reckoning on a never-never promise to keep ratcheting up more 'cohesion' funds is no alternative.
Largest in Trafford, Stockport and Bury. (5 out of 7 Tory MP's).
Lowest in Salford, Manchester and Wigan. (9 out of 10 Labour MP's).
He wins votes from folk who don't vote Labour.
Another mayor used to do the same for a different Party.
Lambeth council leader resigned after 1 year in charge
In both Haringey and Ealing the council leaders have been ousted by their council group tonight.
The outgoing leader in Rochdale was also defeated in the internal meeting yesterday.
The council leader in Hull (who is over 70) announced he wouldn't put forward his name at the upcoming meeting.
Leaders survived the internal challenge in Newcastle (30 to 22 votes) and Coventry (30 to 9)
In Oldham, where the council leader lost his seat on Thursday, Arooj Shah is the new council leader.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dutch_House,_Bristol
We want to tell ourselves that BoJo is no worse than other politicians, because the alternative (that we've voted for a huge lying shyster- whether because we were conned or because we thought he was a liar on our side) is too awful to contemplate.
This might not end quickly, but it definitely won't end well.
I'm going through a phase of emotional unionism, though I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only way to do it is a one-nation/one-state solution, and the opportunity to get that right probably passed two or three hundred years ago, or maybe a thousand years ago. Devolution has been a failure, and I don't buy any of the alternatives on the table which largely seem to amount to keeping the union together by always doing what the Scots want while giving them lots of money. So realistically, I think this is the end of the road.
However, an odd thought occurs to me: my understanding is that the new state is to be citizen'd by its inhabitants, those who were born there, those with a parent who was born there (including me) and those with a grandparent who was born there. It strikes me as not unlikely that there will be more Scottish citizens living in rUK than in Scotland. Which could make for some interesting election results.
Boris, on the other hand, makes things up. He does it with confidence and brio, and even the occasional sly nod and wink that we shouldn't take what he says seriously. But he makes stuff up and tells people what they want to hear. And at some level, we love him for it.
But there are two problems with that. One is that lies only work for a while. Reality always wins in the end. The other is that Johnson has poisoned the well for everyone else. Like you say, we don't trust what Starmer says, because we take it as read that politicians lie. But the flat-out lie (as opposed to the misleading half-truth) is really rare in British politics... or it was until Johnson came along.
It's a legacy of sorts, I suppose.
I don't think Boris has poinsoned the well. There were lies and liars before. We just appreciate being lied to entertainingly.
By contrast I think photos of Holyrood don't quite do justice to how terrible it is. It would probably be tolerable in a Barcelona setting, but among all that stone in Edinburgh it just looks abysmal.
Standing up for "British workers." That's the key phrase here. Specifically the balance. Is it mainly because they're British or mainly because they're workers?, ie how much nationalism is in there, just a bit or an awful lot? - TBC one day.
@isam