All sub 15C 0700 temps this week, after a long run of warm mornings up to 21C. Have we seen the best of the summer already?
12.6C here. At least it's sunny, and I think the forecast is optimistic after the weekend.
So possibly Good Morning is appropriate.
And Ydoethur, two (so far) teachers in my family plan to continue to do so, although another has left the classroom to become an Ed Psych. Currently just finished, satisfactorily, the first year.
So we have @Nigelb with 100% out, me with 67% out, and you with 33% out.
We need somebody with 0% here to complete the set.
Incidentally, I am seriously pissed off with Essex after yesterday. How on earth did you win from the position five overs out?
Do other countries have such ferocious attrition of teachers? Or is it a British problem? Apart from the staffing issues it seems very wasteful.
Or is it like the loss of Foundation Doctors a symptom of much deeper malaise within the system?
Difficult to compare with other countries because teacher systems tend to be quite idiosyncratic. So for example in France it is expected a large number of graduates go into teaching, are assigned to a school, do it for 2-3 years and then do something else. But in the USA, where many state systems would be roughly comparable, around 8% a year leave teaching whereas a ‘natural’ rate would be about 3%. That’s a bit lower than ours but it’s not ridiculously different.
There are reasons for it. First of all, it’s bloody hard work, and not jus pt because of the nature of the beast. Teachers are the only profession I know where hard work is almost a fetish, so you will (true story) hear a primary school teacher boast that she takes her marking everywhere, even to her daughter’s swimming lessons. Such an attitude does bring pressure on the others and to those who don’t know how to find their own pace and stick to it, can be fatal.
There is also far too much pointless meddling by non-experts in media and the government which makes it very difficult to do effectively. Spielman is the epitome of this with her comical ineptitude designed to generate click bait in the Mail, but it affects most of the DfE. Woodhead was of course another example. It’s rather demoralising to be told you’re useless and lazy by functionally illiterate lowlifes who work 37 hour weeks in cosy offices when working 60 hour weeks under tough conditions.
And, of course, a lot go into teaching with high ideals and/or the expectation of short hours and long holidays and find the reality so different they just can’t take it. Woodhead, again, being an example, although he was forced out of teaching for other reasons.
But I think ultimately teaching in the British way is just very hard to do. To encourage discussion, thought, creativity and do it among 30 people a significant minority of whom don’t want to be there and can actually be violent is very, very tough. To do it on average 4.6 times a day forty weeks a year is even harder.
"Teachers are the only profession I know where hard work is almost a fetish" - try solicitors or accountants, both obsessed with chargeable hours and presenteeism.
What confuses me is all the folk around here who claim to have high-powered jobs, but spend all day on an obscure blog. I think most of you are actually sitting in stained string vests, surrounded by pizza boxes and still living off the Bank of Mum and Dad.
At least I have an excuse. I have ridiculously long holidays, an easy time at work and I am not the chief income earner (hurrah for feminism!!)
Incidentally, “presenteeism” is the pest of our age: lots of people holding positions just for the sake of it but being horrifically poor at their actual jobs. Eg The Clown.
Snap. I'm retired and spend a fraction of the time of others and still spend too much time here, as my wife tells me. There are several who tell us they have full time jobs who appear here full time. Confused.
My favourite is the one who claims to be a high-powered lawyer, but spends every waking hour on this blog and is unaware that some of his posts break the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs and the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms.
His mum serves him bowls of Heinz tomato soup to keep his pecker up.
My favourite is Leicester Forest, has been for many years. It’s a cut above imo. I wouldn’t make a special trip there – it’s not that good! – but I always choose it if I’m on the M1. I actually quite like motorway service stations generally. I like the sense of transience about them, everyone just passing through, taking a pause from life, almost stopping the clock; also (and I don’t know why this is) the level of physical attractiveness of the people you see there tends to be bottom quartile, which boosts my own relative standing in this department above what it usually is. There are times, especially if it’s off peak and in an out of the way location, when I’ve been arguably the most comely man on site.
Sturgeon on brink of cooperation deal with Scottish Greens Exclusive: agreement would cement a pro-independence majority at Holyrood and may give Greens ministerial seats
The formal deal, which will stop short of a full coalition of the kind agreed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats under David Cameron and Nick Clegg in 2010, would give the Scottish National party and Scottish Greens a clear majority of seats at Holyrood.
It would allow the first minister to present a strong pro-climate agenda in advance of the Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow this November, and outvote anti-independence parties in Holyrood.
It would be the first time after 14 years in power the SNP had signed a formal deal with another party
The deal will present Scottish Labour, currently Holyrood’s third-largest party, with a significant political challenge. It is likely to give Sturgeon a resilient centre-left majority and removes her need to seek deals with Labour to get policies through the devolved parliament.
the Conservatives are taking a softer line on the potential for a fresh independence referendum
Forgive my pedantry, but if there is a formal deal which gives Greens ministerial seats then in what way does it stop short of full coalition?
Very good question, which the article fails to answer.
Any agreement which gives both parties seats in Cabinet, a shared programme of legislation and an agreed Budget is a coalition. End of.
It would be a sensible assumption that the Green Party will get the Environment brief. If they are in government but not in coalition then what? Are the SNP handing the entire environment brief and policy over to the Green Party to run independently?
Either way, Scotland elected 73 explicitly pro-independence MSPs giving a comfortable majority. Despite HYUFD's endless whining that it isn't a majority, it is. I will be greatly entertained to watch nippy bleat on about a referendum without actually producing one, but that is the "settled will of the Scottish people" or whatever the Tories latest phrase is.
The Scotland Act 1998 is clear union matters are reserved to the UK government and the UK government has made clear it will not allow a legal indyref2 before the 2024 general election.
Sturgeon has made clear she will not hold a wildcat referendum and will not declare UDI so that is the end of the matter. The SNP failed to get a majority in May and so needed a coalition partner. Had Alba won some MSPs and been in coalition with her she might have been forced to go down the route of a wildcat referendum or even UDI. As it is her partners are the Scottish Greens who are more concerned with reforming the Gender Recognition Act than pushing for independence at all costs https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/local/news/too-soon-indyref2-scottish-greens/
Can you define what a wildcat referendum is?
Anything the Scots want which he doesn't?
It ought to be a referendum of the wildcat population. That would be interesting to organise, and probably quite useful from a conservation point of view.
Some interesting taxonomic issues, however.
Alba loons: only Felis silvestris silvestris should get a vote Migrant Yoons: all Felis catus in the UK should get a vote
My favourite is Leicester Forest, has been for many years. It’s a cut above imo. I wouldn’t make a special trip there – it’s not that good! – but I always choose it if I’m on the M1. I actually quite like motorway service stations generally. I like the sense of transience about them, everyone just passing through, taking a pause from life, almost stopping the clock; also (and I don’t know why this is) the level of physical attractiveness of the people you see there tends to be bottom quartile, which boosts my own relative standing in this department above what it usually is. There are times, especially if it’s off peak and in an out of the way location, when I’ve been arguably the most comely man on site.
It looks like the track cycling is turning into a bit of a clown show as far as GB is concerned, like the rowing and athletics. We are lucky to have the newer sports/younger athletes this year to make our total less embarassing. I suspect we will be lucky to match the Beijing games this time.
I remember Atlanta well enough to consider these games to be a resounding success whatever happens now.
That games was an absolute shambles for British sport, Pinsent and Redgrave salvaging a solitary gold. I think the powers that be looked back at those games thought 'Never again' and actually gave our athletes and sportspeople the funding needed. The one sport we do need to fix up for the next games is the rowing !
I don't think Atlanta was quite the disaster everyone remembers it as. Sure, it was a poor performance, but it wasn't that much worse than what we'd done in the 60s and 70s. It was the fact that we only won one gold that stood out.
And didn't the lottery funding start before Atlanta?
The lottery started in 94, and Atlanta was 96. Not sure they'd started funding by then.
Unmissable. The book is superb, as is the films that go with it which give a wonderful account of the realities of war, occupation and liberation.
This one seems to have been made in collaboration with an Italian company but there was also an earlier documentary about Norman Lewis on the BBC where he talked about his life, travels and writing. I have it on video but it really should be shown again.
"The Gallery" by an American writer, John Horne Burns, a fictionalised account based on his time in the US army in North Africa and Naples is also wonderful. It captures the reality of Naples and soldiers' lives in a way which is remarkable and very moving.
Just going to second the review of The Gallery: I read it a couple of months ago on @cyclefree 's recommendation and it's very impressive.
All sub 15C 0700 temps this week, after a long run of warm mornings up to 21C. Have we seen the best of the summer already?
12.6C here. At least it's sunny, and I think the forecast is optimistic after the weekend.
So possibly Good Morning is appropriate.
And Ydoethur, two (so far) teachers in my family plan to continue to do so, although another has left the classroom to become an Ed Psych. Currently just finished, satisfactorily, the first year.
So we have @Nigelb with 100% out, me with 67% out, and you with 33% out.
We need somebody with 0% here to complete the set.
Incidentally, I am seriously pissed off with Essex after yesterday. How on earth did you win from the position five overs out?
Do other countries have such ferocious attrition of teachers? Or is it a British problem? Apart from the staffing issues it seems very wasteful.
Or is it like the loss of Foundation Doctors a symptom of much deeper malaise within the system?
Difficult to compare with other countries because teacher systems tend to be quite idiosyncratic. So for example in France it is expected a large number of graduates go into teaching, are assigned to a school, do it for 2-3 years and then do something else. But in the USA, where many state systems would be roughly comparable, around 8% a year leave teaching whereas a ‘natural’ rate would be about 3%. That’s a bit lower than ours but it’s not ridiculously different.
There are reasons for it. First of all, it’s bloody hard work, and not jus pt because of the nature of the beast. Teachers are the only profession I know where hard work is almost a fetish, so you will (true story) hear a primary school teacher boast that she takes her marking everywhere, even to her daughter’s swimming lessons. Such an attitude does bring pressure on the others and to those who don’t know how to find their own pace and stick to it, can be fatal.
There is also far too much pointless meddling by non-experts in media and the government which makes it very difficult to do effectively. Spielman is the epitome of this with her comical ineptitude designed to generate click bait in the Mail, but it affects most of the DfE. Woodhead was of course another example. It’s rather demoralising to be told you’re useless and lazy by functionally illiterate lowlifes who work 37 hour weeks in cosy offices when working 60 hour weeks under tough conditions.
And, of course, a lot go into teaching with high ideals and/or the expectation of short hours and long holidays and find the reality so different they just can’t take it. Woodhead, again, being an example, although he was forced out of teaching for other reasons.
But I think ultimately teaching in the British way is just very hard to do. To encourage discussion, thought, creativity and do it among 30 people a significant minority of whom don’t want to be there and can actually be violent is very, very tough. To do it on average 4.6 times a day forty weeks a year is even harder.
"Teachers are the only profession I know where hard work is almost a fetish" - try solicitors or accountants, both obsessed with chargeable hours and presenteeism.
What confuses me is all the folk around here who claim to have high-powered jobs, but spend all day on an obscure blog. I think most of you are actually sitting in stained string vests, surrounded by pizza boxes and still living off the Bank of Mum and Dad.
At least I have an excuse. I have ridiculously long holidays, an easy time at work and I am not the chief income earner (hurrah for feminism!!)
Incidentally, “presenteeism” is the pest of our age: lots of people holding positions just for the sake of it but being horrifically poor at their actual jobs. Eg The Clown.
Snap. I'm retired and spend a fraction of the time of others and still spend too much time here, as my wife tells me. There are several who tell us they have full time jobs who appear here full time. Confused.
My favourite is the one who claims to be a high-powered lawyer, but spends every waking hour on this blog and is unaware that some of his posts break the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs and the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms.
His mum serves him bowls of Heinz tomato soup to keep his pecker up.
What is interesting is the way that various organisations have engaged in a ruthless hunt for bloggers in their ranks and silenced them.
Nightjack was an interesting case - but others have reported concerted attempts to shut them down. Often by rewriting Professional Standards to make any kind of reporting/blogging an offence....
Unmissable. The book is superb, as is the films that go with it which give a wonderful account of the realities of war, occupation and liberation.
This one seems to have been made in collaboration with an Italian company but there was also an earlier documentary about Norman Lewis on the BBC where he talked about his life, travels and writing. I have it on video but it really should be shown again.
"The Gallery" by an American writer, John Horne Burns, a fictionalised account based on his time in the US army in North Africa and Naples is also wonderful. It captures the reality of Naples and soldiers' lives in a way which is remarkable and very moving.
It was flagged up in Richard E Grant's "Write about the World" yesterday, BBC4 9pm, which was entirely about Naples. Grant would like to have been born Italian.
It looks like the track cycling is turning into a bit of a clown show as far as GB is concerned, like the rowing and athletics. We are lucky to have the newer sports/younger athletes this year to make our total less embarassing. I suspect we will be lucky to match the Beijing games this time.
I remember Atlanta well enough to consider these games to be a resounding success whatever happens now.
That games was an absolute shambles for British sport, Pinsent and Redgrave salvaging a solitary gold. I think the powers that be looked back at those games thought 'Never again' and actually gave our athletes and sportspeople the funding needed. The one sport we do need to fix up for the next games is the rowing !
I don't think Atlanta was quite the disaster everyone remembers it as. Sure, it was a poor performance, but it wasn't that much worse than what we'd done in the 60s and 70s. It was the fact that we only won one gold that stood out.
And didn't the lottery funding start before Atlanta?
The lottery started in 94, and Atlanta was 96. Not sure they'd started funding by then.
There was some hunting, but it was not very well organised, IIRC.
My favourite is Leicester Forest, has been for many years. It’s a cut above imo. I wouldn’t make a special trip there – it’s not that good! – but I always choose it if I’m on the M1. I actually quite like motorway service stations generally. I like the sense of transience about them, everyone just passing through, taking a pause from life, almost stopping the clock; also (and I don’t know why this is) the level of physical attractiveness of the people you see there tends to be bottom quartile, which boosts my own relative standing in this department above what it usually is. There are times, especially if it’s off peak and in an out of the way location, when I’ve been arguably the most comely man on site.
If your favourite service station isn't Gloucester, Tebay or the other one run by Farm Shop you're doing something wrong. Actually pleasant places to be. Very middle class service stations mind you. The Waitrose of service stations. You don't necessarily get the ugliness of clientele you enjoy at LFE. I'm not sure, though, that people ar LFE are that ugly though. Service stations are the sorts of classless place which draw a fairly representative sample of humanity. British people really are that unattractive. The best thing about LFE is is name. I very much enjoy the triple 'st' sound.
Scottish Government PR machine in overdrive to try to persuade people that the shameful record of drug deaths under their governance is actually someone else's fault, and they they are actually the brave underdogs fighting for the right to improve lives. Revoltingly dishonest.
I get a similar, related issue about being a university lecturer. Anyone who has been an undergrad thinks they know what university is like. They are wrong. UG is just one small part of university life. If I had a pound for everyone who thinks we all close down for three months when the students go home in June I'd be a lot better off. Universities are not just schools for older people. We live and die on research (funding and publication). Summer is time to try to achieve some of that with marginally fewer distractions. It is only marginally though - wrapping up the previous year (marking, collating, getting grades agree etc) and then planning next year goes all through summer. Next week sees the annual chaos of A level results. My prediction - expect problems with too many students getting places... Already one medical school has been trying bribes (money plus free rent if the student defers) to cope with this. They won't be the last.
I'm fortunate to work in a department that is almost free of undergrads (and associated lecturing/marking work - although lots of postgrad supervision). Does mean lecturer posts are devilishly rare and so - unusually - there are a majority of research only positions all the way up the food chain. The downside is that you really have to bring in research funding otherwise your job evaporates pretty quickly as there's no baseline lecturing work to keep you on the books.
Interesting discussion. As a student at uni I was annoyed by the emphasis on lecturers doing research (most of which was ending up in a publication in some journal or other with no follow-up), with the really good lecturers who were interested in students not having the prestige of the research specialists. In fact, the ones who weren't quite so outstanding were often better lecturers, as they understood what was difficult - the boffins swanned through everything briskly without lingering on the tough parts.
My feeling is still that unis should be mostly about teaching, with research a potentially valuable by-product, not the other way round. The fact that research is (somewhat) easier to measure distorts the funding paradigm, I think.
Often true, I think. Some of the new universities with less research emphasis do well on the TEF. When I worked at one of those I had a colleague who had come from a Russell Group uni as he wanted mainly to be a teacher and he was very good.
In research intensive unis you need to be good at research funding, being average at teaching won't really hinder career.
- “… need to be good at research funding…”
That’s the most depressing thing I’ve read today, and we’d just heard about an outbreak of Plague.
Well, to clarify, that's needed to get on to the more senior positions, where it is to an extent about management and winning research funding. You can bob along happily in £30-£40k positions by just being a good researcher working on projects with funding won by others, even in £40k-£50k positions in some cases (those are more manage projects/parts of project, but not necessarily bring the funding in - in trials units for example). I was slightly held up getting to the £40-£50k band because I didn't have much in the way of funding - was explicitly told that I ticked everything else, but not that - so I changed my priorities to focus more on that.
There are exceptional people who can get into higher positions without much funding track record, but that's probably increasingly hard (as with everything - if you're high profile and other universities want you then you can negotiate or move). One retired professor colleague of mine, pre-eminent in his field, is kind of proud of the fact that he was never, ever a principle investigator (lead) on a grant, although he was co-investigator on very many.
Hmmm. Plantations of Sitka are great for wildlife. Was that sponsored by the forestry industry, by any chance...?
Pine martens are apparently the real solution to Grey squirrels. They Greys spend more time on the ground than Red squirrels and aren't quite as agile, so are easier pickings.
(There's a similar thing with Water voles and Otters - Otters drive out the non-native American mink, so Water voles do better where Otters are present)
All sub 15C 0700 temps this week, after a long run of warm mornings up to 21C. Have we seen the best of the summer already?
12.6C here. At least it's sunny, and I think the forecast is optimistic after the weekend.
So possibly Good Morning is appropriate.
And Ydoethur, two (so far) teachers in my family plan to continue to do so, although another has left the classroom to become an Ed Psych. Currently just finished, satisfactorily, the first year.
So we have @Nigelb with 100% out, me with 67% out, and you with 33% out.
We need somebody with 0% here to complete the set.
Incidentally, I am seriously pissed off with Essex after yesterday. How on earth did you win from the position five overs out?
Do other countries have such ferocious attrition of teachers? Or is it a British problem? Apart from the staffing issues it seems very wasteful.
Or is it like the loss of Foundation Doctors a symptom of much deeper malaise within the system?
Difficult to compare with other countries because teacher systems tend to be quite idiosyncratic. So for example in France it is expected a large number of graduates go into teaching, are assigned to a school, do it for 2-3 years and then do something else. But in the USA, where many state systems would be roughly comparable, around 8% a year leave teaching whereas a ‘natural’ rate would be about 3%. That’s a bit lower than ours but it’s not ridiculously different.
There are reasons for it. First of all, it’s bloody hard work, and not jus pt because of the nature of the beast. Teachers are the only profession I know where hard work is almost a fetish, so you will (true story) hear a primary school teacher boast that she takes her marking everywhere, even to her daughter’s swimming lessons. Such an attitude does bring pressure on the others and to those who don’t know how to find their own pace and stick to it, can be fatal.
There is also far too much pointless meddling by non-experts in media and the government which makes it very difficult to do effectively. Spielman is the epitome of this with her comical ineptitude designed to generate click bait in the Mail, but it affects most of the DfE. Woodhead was of course another example. It’s rather demoralising to be told you’re useless and lazy by functionally illiterate lowlifes who work 37 hour weeks in cosy offices when working 60 hour weeks under tough conditions.
And, of course, a lot go into teaching with high ideals and/or the expectation of short hours and long holidays and find the reality so different they just can’t take it. Woodhead, again, being an example, although he was forced out of teaching for other reasons.
But I think ultimately teaching in the British way is just very hard to do. To encourage discussion, thought, creativity and do it among 30 people a significant minority of whom don’t want to be there and can actually be violent is very, very tough. To do it on average 4.6 times a day forty weeks a year is even harder.
"Teachers are the only profession I know where hard work is almost a fetish" - try solicitors or accountants, both obsessed with chargeable hours and presenteeism.
What confuses me is all the folk around here who claim to have high-powered jobs, but spend all day on an obscure blog. I think most of you are actually sitting in stained string vests, surrounded by pizza boxes and still living off the Bank of Mum and Dad.
At least I have an excuse. I have ridiculously long holidays, an easy time at work and I am not the chief income earner (hurrah for feminism!!)
Incidentally, “presenteeism” is the pest of our age: lots of people holding positions just for the sake of it but being horrifically poor at their actual jobs. Eg The Clown.
Snap. I'm retired and spend a fraction of the time of others and still spend too much time here, as my wife tells me. There are several who tell us they have full time jobs who appear here full time. Confused.
My favourite is the one who claims to be a high-powered lawyer, but spends every waking hour on this blog and is unaware that some of his posts break the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs and the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms.
His mum serves him bowls of Heinz tomato soup to keep his pecker up.
What is interesting is the way that various organisations have engaged in a ruthless hunt for bloggers in their ranks and silenced them.
Nightjack was an interesting case - but others have reported concerted attempts to shut them down. Often by rewriting Professional Standards to make any kind of reporting/blogging an offence....
My employer actually encourages my blogging.
They like to see my creative side uncensored. Has opened a few doors.
It looks like the track cycling is turning into a bit of a clown show as far as GB is concerned, like the rowing and athletics. We are lucky to have the newer sports/younger athletes this year to make our total less embarassing. I suspect we will be lucky to match the Beijing games this time.
I remember Atlanta well enough to consider these games to be a resounding success whatever happens now.
That games was an absolute shambles for British sport, Pinsent and Redgrave salvaging a solitary gold. I think the powers that be looked back at those games thought 'Never again' and actually gave our athletes and sportspeople the funding needed. The one sport we do need to fix up for the next games is the rowing !
I don't think Atlanta was quite the disaster everyone remembers it as. Sure, it was a poor performance, but it wasn't that much worse than what we'd done in the 60s and 70s. It was the fact that we only won one gold that stood out.
And didn't the lottery funding start before Atlanta?
The lottery started in 94, and Atlanta was 96. Not sure they'd started funding by then.
There was some hunting, but it was not very well organised, IIRC.
it takes about 5 to 7 years to bring talent through and double that to make a significant difference. it's why Sydney was so much of an improvement on Atlanta. it was the first to be in the range for being impacted by the lottery funding. They then got much better at organising the funding during the run-up to Beijing as they were spending less on setting up programmes and more on running them.
They are all mouth and no trousers, but they *are* the 4 times elected government with their biggest ever vote this time on the biggest ever turnout.
On the issues you raise they need to say some fairly simple things. Currency: will maintain the existing sterling currency union until admitted to the Euro Border: the same solution as GB eventually reaches with the EU will apply (so not really a Scotland-specific problem) Pensions: a positive migration policy to have sufficient workers to pay them EU timing - apply for membership on morning 1 of independence etc
They won't. There seems to be a fear that if they go into detail people may start ignoring heart and feel and instead start making considered judgements...
on entry to the EU, Entry into the EU wouldn't be automatic and would take a number of years of negotiating and implementing. all other things would follow on from that delay. the SNP would also be forced to hold a referendum on EU membership which they'd not be certain to win (although it's highly likely). The EU might also say that Scotland needs to finish negotiating with rUK first before they can start negotiating with them. on the currency, they said that they'd keep sterling in the last indiref and the UK said no. That wouldn't change in indiref2. There's no saying that people would vote for joining the Euro and the SNP couldn't force it on the country on the border, even if Scotland joins the EU it will take a fair amount of time and a medium term position on the border would be required which the UK would be stupid to base the timing of anything on the entry of Scotland into the EU. A fixed and determined situation needs to be agreed initially. Pensions, it's not about the new liabilities which is the problems it is the share of existing liabilities which will be the problem. (plus the share of accumulated debt).
I get all of that, I am just saying that none of it is the insurmountable "see, you can't go" barrier that is suggested.
EU membership? They are well practised at adding new countries, and in this case they would be reincorporating a territory. Easy enough to show alignment as Scotland is already aligned, and even as a UK nation it won't become particularly unaligned in the next few years.
On the currency the situation has changed from 2014. A 2023 (?) question where "independence means the EU and the Euro" is different to 2014 where EU membership wasn't part of the equation. It doesn't matter what the position was back then or what people thought, things have changed.
I think you are trying to complicate the border issue. Scotland will become an EU member state. By the time independence happens GB would already have a settled operating model for its EU border. Whatever we eventually end up doing with France is what you would do with Scotland, and as GB doesn't recognise the EU as anything other than a 3rd country it hardly matters if Scotland is an actual EU member or just an ascension state.
The border issue is more complex than you think. I get the impression from the SNP that they's want the equivalent frictionless border that currently exists. that's not going to happen, and I suspect that it'll be a long time before the UK has a settled border policy with the EU and it'll be nothing like what existed before. There may be some improvements but nothing major and not until Labour win an election (which won't happen before Sind)
Scotland are in the same position in relation to the UK as the UK was with the EU. They may think that they have the aces in the negotiations but if they want 'independence with all of the existing benefits' then they will not get it.
When it comes to the currency, the referendum will only be for Independence future scottish elections would have to deal with joining the EU and the Euro.
Scotland could get it. There is no upside for E&W&NI in wrecking an independent Scotland, tempting as it might be. There is no reason Scotland could not remain in an effective currency and customs union with the rest of the UK.
Unless, that is, Scotland tries to join the EU. As Boris and Lord Frost has discovered, the border needs to go somewhere.
And that might be the problem. Shades of the Brexit referendum; no-one wants to spell out what post-independence life for Scotland ought to look like. What does Scotland want to do outside the UK that it cannot do inside? If it is anything like Brexit, even its fiercest proponents have reached no consensus. Yet the Brexiteers still won.
We are all post-Brexit now and that has educated many. The next Scottish independence referendum debates will take place in the light of that additional knowledge. The other change is that an independent Scotland can't simply fast track into the EU to solve most of the freedom of movement and trade issues with rUK.
Brexit has strengthened the case for Scottish independence, but also increased the cost. On balance it probably makes independence less likely, because the theoretical case for independence is already clear, but the Scots are careful people and the costs are probably the deciding factor at the margin. The net result: the Union persists but with the Scots increasingly miserable participants, the sucker punch of being told to vote no in 2014 to stay in the EU only to be dragged out by the English a festering and legitimate source of grievance. An unhappy marriage indeed.
I agree with this assessment. Curiously reflecting the 1707 vote for the Act of Union. There was a complexity of reasons for voting to dissolve the Scottish parliament, including bribery, not wanting a Catholic King and greater market opportunities. But the big motivation was so that England didn't invade
They are all mouth and no trousers, but they *are* the 4 times elected government with their biggest ever vote this time on the biggest ever turnout.
On the issues you raise they need to say some fairly simple things. Currency: will maintain the existing sterling currency union until admitted to the Euro Border: the same solution as GB eventually reaches with the EU will apply (so not really a Scotland-specific problem) Pensions: a positive migration policy to have sufficient workers to pay them EU timing - apply for membership on morning 1 of independence etc
They won't. There seems to be a fear that if they go into detail people may start ignoring heart and feel and instead start making considered judgements...
on entry to the EU, Entry into the EU wouldn't be automatic and would take a number of years of negotiating and implementing. all other things would follow on from that delay. the SNP would also be forced to hold a referendum on EU membership which they'd not be certain to win (although it's highly likely). The EU might also say that Scotland needs to finish negotiating with rUK first before they can start negotiating with them. on the currency, they said that they'd keep sterling in the last indiref and the UK said no. That wouldn't change in indiref2. There's no saying that people would vote for joining the Euro and the SNP couldn't force it on the country on the border, even if Scotland joins the EU it will take a fair amount of time and a medium term position on the border would be required which the UK would be stupid to base the timing of anything on the entry of Scotland into the EU. A fixed and determined situation needs to be agreed initially. Pensions, it's not about the new liabilities which is the problems it is the share of existing liabilities which will be the problem. (plus the share of accumulated debt).
I get all of that, I am just saying that none of it is the insurmountable "see, you can't go" barrier that is suggested.
EU membership? They are well practised at adding new countries, and in this case they would be reincorporating a territory. Easy enough to show alignment as Scotland is already aligned, and even as a UK nation it won't become particularly unaligned in the next few years.
On the currency the situation has changed from 2014. A 2023 (?) question where "independence means the EU and the Euro" is different to 2014 where EU membership wasn't part of the equation. It doesn't matter what the position was back then or what people thought, things have changed.
I think you are trying to complicate the border issue. Scotland will become an EU member state. By the time independence happens GB would already have a settled operating model for its EU border. Whatever we eventually end up doing with France is what you would do with Scotland, and as GB doesn't recognise the EU as anything other than a 3rd country it hardly matters if Scotland is an actual EU member or just an ascension state.
The border issue is more complex than you think. I get the impression from the SNP that they's want the equivalent frictionless border that currently exists. that's not going to happen, and I suspect that it'll be a long time before the UK has a settled border policy with the EU and it'll be nothing like what existed before. There may be some improvements but nothing major and not until Labour win an election (which won't happen before Sind)
Scotland are in the same position in relation to the UK as the UK was with the EU. They may think that they have the aces in the negotiations but if they want 'independence with all of the existing benefits' then they will not get it.
When it comes to the currency, the referendum will only be for Independence future scottish elections would have to deal with joining the EU and the Euro.
Remember the Tory Brexiteers plugging a digital border for Ireland? There's the solution for Scotland. Just need to invent one first...
Technological solutions to the border issues are possible but there's nowhere in the world where it has been implemented. you're talking somewhere around 10-20 years before it becomes a possibility (assuming someone puts the cash into it).
As I said, If the Scots think that the border post independence will be the same as it is now then they are mistaken.
You halfwit , we don't give a crap about minutiae, that is all part of the negotiations, as RP said , Fatso gave away NI with his digital border , we will just extend across the water and though our land border, problem solved. Stop shaking like a big jelly and worrying about things you have no clue about.
They are all mouth and no trousers, but they *are* the 4 times elected government with their biggest ever vote this time on the biggest ever turnout.
On the issues you raise they need to say some fairly simple things. Currency: will maintain the existing sterling currency union until admitted to the Euro Border: the same solution as GB eventually reaches with the EU will apply (so not really a Scotland-specific problem) Pensions: a positive migration policy to have sufficient workers to pay them EU timing - apply for membership on morning 1 of independence etc
They won't. There seems to be a fear that if they go into detail people may start ignoring heart and feel and instead start making considered judgements...
on entry to the EU, Entry into the EU wouldn't be automatic and would take a number of years of negotiating and implementing. all other things would follow on from that delay. the SNP would also be forced to hold a referendum on EU membership which they'd not be certain to win (although it's highly likely). The EU might also say that Scotland needs to finish negotiating with rUK first before they can start negotiating with them. on the currency, they said that they'd keep sterling in the last indiref and the UK said no. That wouldn't change in indiref2. There's no saying that people would vote for joining the Euro and the SNP couldn't force it on the country on the border, even if Scotland joins the EU it will take a fair amount of time and a medium term position on the border would be required which the UK would be stupid to base the timing of anything on the entry of Scotland into the EU. A fixed and determined situation needs to be agreed initially. Pensions, it's not about the new liabilities which is the problems it is the share of existing liabilities which will be the problem. (plus the share of accumulated debt).
I get all of that, I am just saying that none of it is the insurmountable "see, you can't go" barrier that is suggested.
EU membership? They are well practised at adding new countries, and in this case they would be reincorporating a territory. Easy enough to show alignment as Scotland is already aligned, and even as a UK nation it won't become particularly unaligned in the next few years.
On the currency the situation has changed from 2014. A 2023 (?) question where "independence means the EU and the Euro" is different to 2014 where EU membership wasn't part of the equation. It doesn't matter what the position was back then or what people thought, things have changed.
I think you are trying to complicate the border issue. Scotland will become an EU member state. By the time independence happens GB would already have a settled operating model for its EU border. Whatever we eventually end up doing with France is what you would do with Scotland, and as GB doesn't recognise the EU as anything other than a 3rd country it hardly matters if Scotland is an actual EU member or just an ascension state.
The border issue is more complex than you think. I get the impression from the SNP that they's want the equivalent frictionless border that currently exists. that's not going to happen, and I suspect that it'll be a long time before the UK has a settled border policy with the EU and it'll be nothing like what existed before. There may be some improvements but nothing major and not until Labour win an election (which won't happen before Sind)
Scotland are in the same position in relation to the UK as the UK was with the EU. They may think that they have the aces in the negotiations but if they want 'independence with all of the existing benefits' then they will not get it.
When it comes to the currency, the referendum will only be for Independence future scottish elections would have to deal with joining the EU and the Euro.
Scotland could get it. There is no upside for E&W&NI in wrecking an independent Scotland, tempting as it might be. There is no reason Scotland could not remain in an effective currency and customs union with the rest of the UK.
Unless, that is, Scotland tries to join the EU. As Boris and Lord Frost has discovered, the border needs to go somewhere.
And that might be the problem. Shades of the Brexit referendum; no-one wants to spell out what post-independence life for Scotland ought to look like. What does Scotland want to do outside the UK that it cannot do inside? If it is anything like Brexit, even its fiercest proponents have reached no consensus. Yet the Brexiteers still won.
We are all post-Brexit now and that has educated many. The next Scottish independence referendum debates will take place in the light of that additional knowledge. The other change is that an independent Scotland can't simply fast track into the EU to solve most of the freedom of movement and trade issues with rUK.
Brexit has strengthened the case for Scottish independence, but also increased the cost. On balance it probably makes independence less likely, because the theoretical case for independence is already clear, but the Scots are careful people and the costs are probably the deciding factor at the margin. The net result: the Union persists but with the Scots increasingly miserable participants, the sucker punch of being told to vote no in 2014 to stay in the EU only to be dragged out by the English a festering and legitimate source of grievance. An unhappy marriage indeed.
What absolute bollox , a whiny "the Scots are careful people", your absolute arse and you claim to be Scottish. Have you ever been there, I would love to know where all these careful people are.
My favourite is Leicester Forest, has been for many years. It’s a cut above imo. I wouldn’t make a special trip there – it’s not that good! – but I always choose it if I’m on the M1. I actually quite like motorway service stations generally. I like the sense of transience about them, everyone just passing through, taking a pause from life, almost stopping the clock; also (and I don’t know why this is) the level of physical attractiveness of the people you see there tends to be bottom quartile, which boosts my own relative standing in this department above what it usually is. There are times, especially if it’s off peak and in an out of the way location, when I’ve been arguably the most comely man on site.
If your favourite service station isn't Gloucester, Tebay or the other one run by Farm Shop you're doing something wrong. Actually pleasant places to be. Very middle class service stations mind you. The Waitrose of service stations. You don't necessarily get the ugliness of clientele you enjoy at LFE. I'm not sure, though, that people ar LFE are that ugly though. Service stations are the sorts of classless place which draw a fairly representative sample of humanity. British people really are that unattractive. The best thing about LFE is is name. I very much enjoy the triple 'st' sound.
I eventually decided that I preferred the beetroot pasties to the giant wild boar sausage rolls from Gloucester services.
They are all mouth and no trousers, but they *are* the 4 times elected government with their biggest ever vote this time on the biggest ever turnout.
On the issues you raise they need to say some fairly simple things. Currency: will maintain the existing sterling currency union until admitted to the Euro Border: the same solution as GB eventually reaches with the EU will apply (so not really a Scotland-specific problem) Pensions: a positive migration policy to have sufficient workers to pay them EU timing - apply for membership on morning 1 of independence etc
They won't. There seems to be a fear that if they go into detail people may start ignoring heart and feel and instead start making considered judgements...
on entry to the EU, Entry into the EU wouldn't be automatic and would take a number of years of negotiating and implementing. all other things would follow on from that delay. the SNP would also be forced to hold a referendum on EU membership which they'd not be certain to win (although it's highly likely). The EU might also say that Scotland needs to finish negotiating with rUK first before they can start negotiating with them. on the currency, they said that they'd keep sterling in the last indiref and the UK said no. That wouldn't change in indiref2. There's no saying that people would vote for joining the Euro and the SNP couldn't force it on the country on the border, even if Scotland joins the EU it will take a fair amount of time and a medium term position on the border would be required which the UK would be stupid to base the timing of anything on the entry of Scotland into the EU. A fixed and determined situation needs to be agreed initially. Pensions, it's not about the new liabilities which is the problems it is the share of existing liabilities which will be the problem. (plus the share of accumulated debt).
I get all of that, I am just saying that none of it is the insurmountable "see, you can't go" barrier that is suggested.
EU membership? They are well practised at adding new countries, and in this case they would be reincorporating a territory. Easy enough to show alignment as Scotland is already aligned, and even as a UK nation it won't become particularly unaligned in the next few years.
On the currency the situation has changed from 2014. A 2023 (?) question where "independence means the EU and the Euro" is different to 2014 where EU membership wasn't part of the equation. It doesn't matter what the position was back then or what people thought, things have changed.
I think you are trying to complicate the border issue. Scotland will become an EU member state. By the time independence happens GB would already have a settled operating model for its EU border. Whatever we eventually end up doing with France is what you would do with Scotland, and as GB doesn't recognise the EU as anything other than a 3rd country it hardly matters if Scotland is an actual EU member or just an ascension state.
The border issue is more complex than you think. I get the impression from the SNP that they's want the equivalent frictionless border that currently exists. that's not going to happen, and I suspect that it'll be a long time before the UK has a settled border policy with the EU and it'll be nothing like what existed before. There may be some improvements but nothing major and not until Labour win an election (which won't happen before Sind)
Scotland are in the same position in relation to the UK as the UK was with the EU. They may think that they have the aces in the negotiations but if they want 'independence with all of the existing benefits' then they will not get it.
When it comes to the currency, the referendum will only be for Independence future scottish elections would have to deal with joining the EU and the Euro.
Scotland could get it. There is no upside for E&W&NI in wrecking an independent Scotland, tempting as it might be. There is no reason Scotland could not remain in an effective currency and customs union with the rest of the UK.
Unless, that is, Scotland tries to join the EU. As Boris and Lord Frost has discovered, the border needs to go somewhere.
And that might be the problem. Shades of the Brexit referendum; no-one wants to spell out what post-independence life for Scotland ought to look like. What does Scotland want to do outside the UK that it cannot do inside? If it is anything like Brexit, even its fiercest proponents have reached no consensus. Yet the Brexiteers still won.
We are all post-Brexit now and that has educated many. The next Scottish independence referendum debates will take place in the light of that additional knowledge. The other change is that an independent Scotland can't simply fast track into the EU to solve most of the freedom of movement and trade issues with rUK.
Brexit has strengthened the case for Scottish independence, but also increased the cost. On balance it probably makes independence less likely, because the theoretical case for independence is already clear, but the Scots are careful people and the costs are probably the deciding factor at the margin. The net result: the Union persists but with the Scots increasingly miserable participants, the sucker punch of being told to vote no in 2014 to stay in the EU only to be dragged out by the English a festering and legitimate source of grievance. An unhappy marriage indeed.
What absolute bollox , a whiny "the Scots are careful people", your absolute arse and you claim to be Scottish. Have you ever been there, I would love to know where all these careful people are.
Hmmm. Plantations of Sitka are great for wildlife. Was that sponsored by the forestry industry, by any chance...?
Pine martens are apparently the real solution to Grey squirrels. They Greys spend more time on the ground than Red squirrels and aren't quite as agile, so are easier pickings.
(There's a similar thing with Water voles and Otters - Otters drive out the non-native American mink, so Water voles do better where Otters are present)
I did wonder too.
"This work was funded by Forestry and Land Scotland, an executive agency of the Scottish Government responsible for managing the national forest estate."
My favourite is Leicester Forest, has been for many years. It’s a cut above imo. I wouldn’t make a special trip there – it’s not that good! – but I always choose it if I’m on the M1. I actually quite like motorway service stations generally. I like the sense of transience about them, everyone just passing through, taking a pause from life, almost stopping the clock; also (and I don’t know why this is) the level of physical attractiveness of the people you see there tends to be bottom quartile, which boosts my own relative standing in this department above what it usually is. There are times, especially if it’s off peak and in an out of the way location, when I’ve been arguably the most comely man on site.
If your favourite service station isn't Gloucester, Tebay or the other one run by Farm Shop you're doing something wrong. Actually pleasant places to be. Very middle class service stations mind you. The Waitrose of service stations. You don't necessarily get the ugliness of clientele you enjoy at LFE. I'm not sure, though, that people ar LFE are that ugly though. Service stations are the sorts of classless place which draw a fairly representative sample of humanity. British people really are that unattractive. The best thing about LFE is is name. I very much enjoy the triple 'st' sound.
I eventually decided that I preferred the beetroot pasties to the giant wild boar sausage rolls from Gloucester services.
Oh please. I'm hungry now (or, rather, even hungrier now).
They are all mouth and no trousers, but they *are* the 4 times elected government with their biggest ever vote this time on the biggest ever turnout.
On the issues you raise they need to say some fairly simple things. Currency: will maintain the existing sterling currency union until admitted to the Euro Border: the same solution as GB eventually reaches with the EU will apply (so not really a Scotland-specific problem) Pensions: a positive migration policy to have sufficient workers to pay them EU timing - apply for membership on morning 1 of independence etc
They won't. There seems to be a fear that if they go into detail people may start ignoring heart and feel and instead start making considered judgements...
on entry to the EU, Entry into the EU wouldn't be automatic and would take a number of years of negotiating and implementing. all other things would follow on from that delay. the SNP would also be forced to hold a referendum on EU membership which they'd not be certain to win (although it's highly likely). The EU might also say that Scotland needs to finish negotiating with rUK first before they can start negotiating with them. on the currency, they said that they'd keep sterling in the last indiref and the UK said no. That wouldn't change in indiref2. There's no saying that people would vote for joining the Euro and the SNP couldn't force it on the country on the border, even if Scotland joins the EU it will take a fair amount of time and a medium term position on the border would be required which the UK would be stupid to base the timing of anything on the entry of Scotland into the EU. A fixed and determined situation needs to be agreed initially. Pensions, it's not about the new liabilities which is the problems it is the share of existing liabilities which will be the problem. (plus the share of accumulated debt).
I get all of that, I am just saying that none of it is the insurmountable "see, you can't go" barrier that is suggested.
EU membership? They are well practised at adding new countries, and in this case they would be reincorporating a territory. Easy enough to show alignment as Scotland is already aligned, and even as a UK nation it won't become particularly unaligned in the next few years.
On the currency the situation has changed from 2014. A 2023 (?) question where "independence means the EU and the Euro" is different to 2014 where EU membership wasn't part of the equation. It doesn't matter what the position was back then or what people thought, things have changed.
I think you are trying to complicate the border issue. Scotland will become an EU member state. By the time independence happens GB would already have a settled operating model for its EU border. Whatever we eventually end up doing with France is what you would do with Scotland, and as GB doesn't recognise the EU as anything other than a 3rd country it hardly matters if Scotland is an actual EU member or just an ascension state.
The border issue is more complex than you think. I get the impression from the SNP that they's want the equivalent frictionless border that currently exists. that's not going to happen, and I suspect that it'll be a long time before the UK has a settled border policy with the EU and it'll be nothing like what existed before. There may be some improvements but nothing major and not until Labour win an election (which won't happen before Sind)
Scotland are in the same position in relation to the UK as the UK was with the EU. They may think that they have the aces in the negotiations but if they want 'independence with all of the existing benefits' then they will not get it.
When it comes to the currency, the referendum will only be for Independence future scottish elections would have to deal with joining the EU and the Euro.
Remember the Tory Brexiteers plugging a digital border for Ireland? There's the solution for Scotland. Just need to invent one first...
Technological solutions to the border issues are possible but there's nowhere in the world where it has been implemented. you're talking somewhere around 10-20 years before it becomes a possibility (assuming someone puts the cash into it).
As I said, If the Scots think that the border post independence will be the same as it is now then they are mistaken.
You halfwit , we don't give a crap about minutiae, that is all part of the negotiations, as RP said , Fatso gave away NI with his digital border , we will just extend across the water and though our land border, problem solved. Stop shaking like a big jelly and worrying about things you have no clue about.
nobody on either side of the debate in Scotland nor anyone in the remains of the UK would want the uncertainty that would result of that. The rUK would actively prevent it.
The negotiations following a yes vote would involve some big questions for the Scottish people. Do you want to remain closely tied to the rest of the UK or do you want to be closely tied to the EU?
if the answer is to remain tied to the UK then you'll find people will vote to stay in the UK. if it's to join the EU then you can't have the same relationship with the rest of the UK that currently exists.
WRT NI, i don't think that Johnson actually cares about NI. he wanted to break away from the EU if that meant compromise over NI so be it.
Neither Biden nor Harris on the Dem ticket in 2024.
It would need a big price as it takes few things to happen for it to come off. Biden has to go or be removed via the 25th because his brain's a piece of shit. Somebody (Buttigieg, AOC?) has to run and beat Kamala to the Democrat nomination.
The only thing that makes a slightly attractive betting notion is that if Biden does get hauled off then the Democrats must realise that Kamala can't possibly beat Trump (for it is he).
All sub 15C 0700 temps this week, after a long run of warm mornings up to 21C. Have we seen the best of the summer already?
12.6C here. At least it's sunny, and I think the forecast is optimistic after the weekend.
So possibly Good Morning is appropriate.
And Ydoethur, two (so far) teachers in my family plan to continue to do so, although another has left the classroom to become an Ed Psych. Currently just finished, satisfactorily, the first year.
So we have @Nigelb with 100% out, me with 67% out, and you with 33% out.
We need somebody with 0% here to complete the set.
Incidentally, I am seriously pissed off with Essex after yesterday. How on earth did you win from the position five overs out?
Do other countries have such ferocious attrition of teachers? Or is it a British problem? Apart from the staffing issues it seems very wasteful.
Or is it like the loss of Foundation Doctors a symptom of much deeper malaise within the system?
Difficult to compare with other countries because teacher systems tend to be quite idiosyncratic. So for example in France it is expected a large number of graduates go into teaching, are assigned to a school, do it for 2-3 years and then do something else. But in the USA, where many state systems would be roughly comparable, around 8% a year leave teaching whereas a ‘natural’ rate would be about 3%. That’s a bit lower than ours but it’s not ridiculously different.
There are reasons for it. First of all, it’s bloody hard work, and not jus pt because of the nature of the beast. Teachers are the only profession I know where hard work is almost a fetish, so you will (true story) hear a primary school teacher boast that she takes her marking everywhere, even to her daughter’s swimming lessons. Such an attitude does bring pressure on the others and to those who don’t know how to find their own pace and stick to it, can be fatal.
There is also far too much pointless meddling by non-experts in media and the government which makes it very difficult to do effectively. Spielman is the epitome of this with her comical ineptitude designed to generate click bait in the Mail, but it affects most of the DfE. Woodhead was of course another example. It’s rather demoralising to be told you’re useless and lazy by functionally illiterate lowlifes who work 37 hour weeks in cosy offices when working 60 hour weeks under tough conditions.
And, of course, a lot go into teaching with high ideals and/or the expectation of short hours and long holidays and find the reality so different they just can’t take it. Woodhead, again, being an example, although he was forced out of teaching for other reasons.
But I think ultimately teaching in the British way is just very hard to do. To encourage discussion, thought, creativity and do it among 30 people a significant minority of whom don’t want to be there and can actually be violent is very, very tough. To do it on average 4.6 times a day forty weeks a year is even harder.
"Teachers are the only profession I know where hard work is almost a fetish" - try solicitors or accountants, both obsessed with chargeable hours and presenteeism.
What confuses me is all the folk around here who claim to have high-powered jobs, but spend all day on an obscure blog. I think most of you are actually sitting in stained string vests, surrounded by pizza boxes and still living off the Bank of Mum and Dad.
At least I have an excuse. I have ridiculously long holidays, an easy time at work and I am not the chief income earner (hurrah for feminism!!)
Incidentally, “presenteeism” is the pest of our age: lots of people holding positions just for the sake of it but being horrifically poor at their actual jobs. Eg The Clown.
Snap. I'm retired and spend a fraction of the time of others and still spend too much time here, as my wife tells me. There are several who tell us they have full time jobs who appear here full time. Confused.
My favourite is the one who claims to be a high-powered lawyer, but spends every waking hour on this blog and is unaware that some of his posts break the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs and the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms.
His mum serves him bowls of Heinz tomato soup to keep his pecker up.
What is interesting is the way that various organisations have engaged in a ruthless hunt for bloggers in their ranks and silenced them.
Nightjack was an interesting case - but others have reported concerted attempts to shut them down. Often by rewriting Professional Standards to make any kind of reporting/blogging an offence....
My employer actually encourages my blogging.
They like to see my creative side uncensored. Has opened a few doors.
We’ve hit the motherload recently.
With Indyref2 preparations coming under my aegis.
I even get to commission opinion polls.
Few bloggers (probably none except you) have the backup and money that allows opinion polls to be commissioned.
All sub 15C 0700 temps this week, after a long run of warm mornings up to 21C. Have we seen the best of the summer already?
12.6C here. At least it's sunny, and I think the forecast is optimistic after the weekend.
So possibly Good Morning is appropriate.
And Ydoethur, two (so far) teachers in my family plan to continue to do so, although another has left the classroom to become an Ed Psych. Currently just finished, satisfactorily, the first year.
So we have @Nigelb with 100% out, me with 67% out, and you with 33% out.
We need somebody with 0% here to complete the set.
Incidentally, I am seriously pissed off with Essex after yesterday. How on earth did you win from the position five overs out?
Do other countries have such ferocious attrition of teachers? Or is it a British problem? Apart from the staffing issues it seems very wasteful.
Or is it like the loss of Foundation Doctors a symptom of much deeper malaise within the system?
Difficult to compare with other countries because teacher systems tend to be quite idiosyncratic. So for example in France it is expected a large number of graduates go into teaching, are assigned to a school, do it for 2-3 years and then do something else. But in the USA, where many state systems would be roughly comparable, around 8% a year leave teaching whereas a ‘natural’ rate would be about 3%. That’s a bit lower than ours but it’s not ridiculously different.
There are reasons for it. First of all, it’s bloody hard work, and not jus pt because of the nature of the beast. Teachers are the only profession I know where hard work is almost a fetish, so you will (true story) hear a primary school teacher boast that she takes her marking everywhere, even to her daughter’s swimming lessons. Such an attitude does bring pressure on the others and to those who don’t know how to find their own pace and stick to it, can be fatal.
There is also far too much pointless meddling by non-experts in media and the government which makes it very difficult to do effectively. Spielman is the epitome of this with her comical ineptitude designed to generate click bait in the Mail, but it affects most of the DfE. Woodhead was of course another example. It’s rather demoralising to be told you’re useless and lazy by functionally illiterate lowlifes who work 37 hour weeks in cosy offices when working 60 hour weeks under tough conditions.
And, of course, a lot go into teaching with high ideals and/or the expectation of short hours and long holidays and find the reality so different they just can’t take it. Woodhead, again, being an example, although he was forced out of teaching for other reasons.
But I think ultimately teaching in the British way is just very hard to do. To encourage discussion, thought, creativity and do it among 30 people a significant minority of whom don’t want to be there and can actually be violent is very, very tough. To do it on average 4.6 times a day forty weeks a year is even harder.
"Teachers are the only profession I know where hard work is almost a fetish" - try solicitors or accountants, both obsessed with chargeable hours and presenteeism.
What confuses me is all the folk around here who claim to have high-powered jobs, but spend all day on an obscure blog. I think most of you are actually sitting in stained string vests, surrounded by pizza boxes and still living off the Bank of Mum and Dad.
At least I have an excuse. I have ridiculously long holidays, an easy time at work and I am not the chief income earner (hurrah for feminism!!)
Incidentally, “presenteeism” is the pest of our age: lots of people holding positions just for the sake of it but being horrifically poor at their actual jobs. Eg The Clown.
Snap. I'm retired and spend a fraction of the time of others and still spend too much time here, as my wife tells me. There are several who tell us they have full time jobs who appear here full time. Confused.
My favourite is the one who claims to be a high-powered lawyer, but spends every waking hour on this blog and is unaware that some of his posts break the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs and the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms.
His mum serves him bowls of Heinz tomato soup to keep his pecker up.
What is interesting is the way that various organisations have engaged in a ruthless hunt for bloggers in their ranks and silenced them.
Nightjack was an interesting case - but others have reported concerted attempts to shut them down. Often by rewriting Professional Standards to make any kind of reporting/blogging an offence....
My employer actually encourages my blogging.
They like to see my creative side uncensored. Has opened a few doors.
We’ve hit the motherload recently.
With Indyref2 preparations coming under my aegis.
I even get to commission opinion polls.
Few bloggers (probably none except you) have the backup and money that allows opinion polls to be commissioned.
Wings over Scotland did - with some very interesting results.
Hmmm. Plantations of Sitka are great for wildlife. Was that sponsored by the forestry industry, by any chance...?
Pine martens are apparently the real solution to Grey squirrels. They Greys spend more time on the ground than Red squirrels and aren't quite as agile, so are easier pickings.
(There's a similar thing with Water voles and Otters - Otters drive out the non-native American mink, so Water voles do better where Otters are present)
I did wonder too.
"This work was funded by Forestry and Land Scotland, an executive agency of the Scottish Government responsible for managing the national forest estate."
So the Forestry Commission (Scottish branch), then!
In England the FC are generally trying to get rid of monoculture plantations. I thought the same applied in Scotland, so this seems like an odd article.
Neither Biden nor Harris on the Dem ticket in 2024.
It would need a big price as it takes few things to happen for it to come off. Biden has to go or be removed via the 25th because his brain's a piece of shit. Somebody (Buttigieg, AOC?) has to run and beat Kamala to the Democrat nomination.
The only thing that makes a slightly attractive betting notion is that if Biden does get hauled off then the Democrats must realise that Kamala can't possibly beat Trump (for it is he).
The problem is I think Harris will dig her heels in on this. Why is she going to give up the shot of the Presidency when it is so close, especially when she knows the "Black Woman" card is strong in the party? She stands aside, she is never getting another chance at the Presidency.
Which is why it has to be something that pushes her out as opposed to someone having a chat.
They are all mouth and no trousers, but they *are* the 4 times elected government with their biggest ever vote this time on the biggest ever turnout.
On the issues you raise they need to say some fairly simple things. Currency: will maintain the existing sterling currency union until admitted to the Euro Border: the same solution as GB eventually reaches with the EU will apply (so not really a Scotland-specific problem) Pensions: a positive migration policy to have sufficient workers to pay them EU timing - apply for membership on morning 1 of independence etc
They won't. There seems to be a fear that if they go into detail people may start ignoring heart and feel and instead start making considered judgements...
on entry to the EU, Entry into the EU wouldn't be automatic and would take a number of years of negotiating and implementing. all other things would follow on from that delay. the SNP would also be forced to hold a referendum on EU membership which they'd not be certain to win (although it's highly likely). The EU might also say that Scotland needs to finish negotiating with rUK first before they can start negotiating with them. on the currency, they said that they'd keep sterling in the last indiref and the UK said no. That wouldn't change in indiref2. There's no saying that people would vote for joining the Euro and the SNP couldn't force it on the country on the border, even if Scotland joins the EU it will take a fair amount of time and a medium term position on the border would be required which the UK would be stupid to base the timing of anything on the entry of Scotland into the EU. A fixed and determined situation needs to be agreed initially. Pensions, it's not about the new liabilities which is the problems it is the share of existing liabilities which will be the problem. (plus the share of accumulated debt).
I get all of that, I am just saying that none of it is the insurmountable "see, you can't go" barrier that is suggested.
EU membership? They are well practised at adding new countries, and in this case they would be reincorporating a territory. Easy enough to show alignment as Scotland is already aligned, and even as a UK nation it won't become particularly unaligned in the next few years.
On the currency the situation has changed from 2014. A 2023 (?) question where "independence means the EU and the Euro" is different to 2014 where EU membership wasn't part of the equation. It doesn't matter what the position was back then or what people thought, things have changed.
I think you are trying to complicate the border issue. Scotland will become an EU member state. By the time independence happens GB would already have a settled operating model for its EU border. Whatever we eventually end up doing with France is what you would do with Scotland, and as GB doesn't recognise the EU as anything other than a 3rd country it hardly matters if Scotland is an actual EU member or just an ascension state.
The border issue is more complex than you think. I get the impression from the SNP that they's want the equivalent frictionless border that currently exists. that's not going to happen, and I suspect that it'll be a long time before the UK has a settled border policy with the EU and it'll be nothing like what existed before. There may be some improvements but nothing major and not until Labour win an election (which won't happen before Sind)
Scotland are in the same position in relation to the UK as the UK was with the EU. They may think that they have the aces in the negotiations but if they want 'independence with all of the existing benefits' then they will not get it.
When it comes to the currency, the referendum will only be for Independence future scottish elections would have to deal with joining the EU and the Euro.
Scotland could get it. There is no upside for E&W&NI in wrecking an independent Scotland, tempting as it might be. There is no reason Scotland could not remain in an effective currency and customs union with the rest of the UK.
Unless, that is, Scotland tries to join the EU. As Boris and Lord Frost has discovered, the border needs to go somewhere.
And that might be the problem. Shades of the Brexit referendum; no-one wants to spell out what post-independence life for Scotland ought to look like. What does Scotland want to do outside the UK that it cannot do inside? If it is anything like Brexit, even its fiercest proponents have reached no consensus. Yet the Brexiteers still won.
We are all post-Brexit now and that has educated many. The next Scottish independence referendum debates will take place in the light of that additional knowledge. The other change is that an independent Scotland can't simply fast track into the EU to solve most of the freedom of movement and trade issues with rUK.
Brexit has strengthened the case for Scottish independence, but also increased the cost. On balance it probably makes independence less likely, because the theoretical case for independence is already clear, but the Scots are careful people and the costs are probably the deciding factor at the margin. The net result: the Union persists but with the Scots increasingly miserable participants, the sucker punch of being told to vote no in 2014 to stay in the EU only to be dragged out by the English a festering and legitimate source of grievance. An unhappy marriage indeed.
I agree with this assessment. Curiously reflecting the 1707 vote for the Act of Union. There was a complexity of reasons for voting to dissolve the Scottish parliament, including bribery, not wanting a Catholic King and greater market opportunities. But the big motivation was so that England didn't invade
Hmmm. Plantations of Sitka are great for wildlife. Was that sponsored by the forestry industry, by any chance...?
Pine martens are apparently the real solution to Grey squirrels. They Greys spend more time on the ground than Red squirrels and aren't quite as agile, so are easier pickings.
(There's a similar thing with Water voles and Otters - Otters drive out the non-native American mink, so Water voles do better where Otters are present)
I did wonder too.
"This work was funded by Forestry and Land Scotland, an executive agency of the Scottish Government responsible for managing the national forest estate."
So the Forestry Commission (Scottish branch), then!
In England the FC are generally trying to get rid of monoculture plantations. I thought the same applied in Scotland, so this seems like an odd article.
London has topped the rankings out of 80 cities around the globe, for a higher quality of life and social capital, according to a new report by BCG.
Can't be right, Provincial PB reckons it's a shit hole.
Not quite - it's the least shit of 80 shitholes around the globe.
I'm just amused by London apparently having 2.5 restaurants per person.
Out of interest, what places in the world are not classified as "shitholes"? Any cities, at all? If you don't personally like living in high density population areas, that's fine, but it comes across as somewhat obtuse not to recognise that lots of people do (at latest estimates, three quarters of the world's population).
It is definitely obtuse
Of course loads of people love living in cities. Personally, I love going to them, and having the opportunity to leave again.
I doubt 3/4 of the world's population love living in Cities, though. Many live in cities simply because 19th and 20th century industrial and service industry practices accelerated the process of concentration into larger and larger urban settlements around the globe.
I point at the alacrity with which a great many people have leaped to remote working as evidence for this latent desire *not* to be City dwellers.
[Note that I am making no unsupported claims for "a majority" of people wanting to leave Cities, just that it may not be so much of a 'choice'.]
I agree that a lot of the people who live in cities don't much "love" it - but, since it's often much cheaper to live elsewhere, it's difficult to see what is preventing people from moving out of them en masse. My working assumption is therefore that most people living in cities have determined that the positives outweigh the negatives.
On remote working - the key is that it eliminates or severely reduces the impact on your week of commuting, which everyone agrees is a massive pain. Longer term, most people are going to end up on hybrid working, so they will still need to be in easy reach of their place of work most of the time - so still all the positives of city life, but with one of main drawbacks gone. It's also noticeable how much more negative people got on home working when the temperature went over 30 degrees and they remembered they didn't have air conditioning.
Universities Minister Michelle Donelan says "It's the route out of the pandemic" but she assures "we certainly not be introducing a vaccine requirement for any form of education."
Neither Biden nor Harris on the Dem ticket in 2024.
It would need a big price as it takes few things to happen for it to come off. Biden has to go or be removed via the 25th because his brain's a piece of shit. Somebody (Buttigieg, AOC?) has to run and beat Kamala to the Democrat nomination.
The only thing that makes a slightly attractive betting notion is that if Biden does get hauled off then the Democrats must realise that Kamala can't possibly beat Trump (for it is he).
The problem is I think Harris will dig her heels in on this. Why is she going to give up the shot of the Presidency when it is so close, especially when she knows the "Black Woman" card is strong in the party? She stands aside, she is never getting another chance at the Presidency.
Which is why it has to be something that pushes her out as opposed to someone having a chat.
Universities Minister Michelle Donelan says "It's the route out of the pandemic" but she assures "we certainly not be introducing a vaccine requirement for any form of education."
Neither Biden nor Harris on the Dem ticket in 2024.
It would need a big price as it takes few things to happen for it to come off. Biden has to go or be removed via the 25th because his brain's a piece of shit. Somebody (Buttigieg, AOC?) has to run and beat Kamala to the Democrat nomination.
The only thing that makes a slightly attractive betting notion is that if Biden does get hauled off then the Democrats must realise that Kamala can't possibly beat Trump (for it is he).
The problem is I think Harris will dig her heels in on this. Why is she going to give up the shot of the Presidency when it is so close, especially when she knows the "Black Woman" card is strong in the party? She stands aside, she is never getting another chance at the Presidency.
Which is why it has to be something that pushes her out as opposed to someone having a chat.
Neither Biden nor Harris on the Dem ticket in 2024.
It would need a big price as it takes few things to happen for it to come off. Biden has to go or be removed via the 25th because his brain's a piece of shit. Somebody (Buttigieg, AOC?) has to run and beat Kamala to the Democrat nomination.
The only thing that makes a slightly attractive betting notion is that if Biden does get hauled off then the Democrats must realise that Kamala can't possibly beat Trump (for it is he).
The problem is I think Harris will dig her heels in on this. Why is she going to give up the shot of the Presidency when it is so close, especially when she knows the "Black Woman" card is strong in the party? She stands aside, she is never getting another chance at the Presidency.
Which is why it has to be something that pushes her out as opposed to someone having a chat.
Trump's dream scenario is of course ill health forces Biden, his most dangerous opponent, to stand down before 2024 and Harris takes over. As VP if Biden is forced to step down Harris would automatically become POTUS in his place and would then be near unstoppable for the 2024 Democratic nomination. Trump would then easily win the GOP nomination and would fancy his chances of portraying Harris as an ultra woke Hillary so that he becomes the first President to lose re election but then return 4 years later to the Oval office since Grover Cleveland in 1893.
If Biden's health holds though he will almost certainly run for re election
London has topped the rankings out of 80 cities around the globe, for a higher quality of life and social capital, according to a new report by BCG.
Can't be right, Provincial PB reckons it's a shit hole.
Not quite - it's the least shit of 80 shitholes around the globe.
I'm just amused by London apparently having 2.5 restaurants per person.
Out of interest, what places in the world are not classified as "shitholes"? Any cities, at all? If you don't personally like living in high density population areas, that's fine, but it comes across as somewhat obtuse not to recognise that lots of people do (at latest estimates, three quarters of the world's population).
It is definitely obtuse
Of course loads of people love living in cities. Personally, I love going to them, and having the opportunity to leave again.
I doubt 3/4 of the world's population love living in Cities, though. Many live in cities simply because 19th and 20th century industrial and service industry practices accelerated the process of concentration into larger and larger urban settlements around the globe.
I point at the alacrity with which a great many people have leaped to remote working as evidence for this latent desire *not* to be City dwellers.
[Note that I am making no unsupported claims for "a majority" of people wanting to leave Cities, just that it may not be so much of a 'choice'.]
I agree that a lot of the people who live in cities don't much "love" it - but, since it's often much cheaper to live elsewhere, it's difficult to see what is preventing people from moving out of them en masse. My working assumption is therefore that most people living in cities have determined that the positives outweigh the negatives.
On remote working - the key is that it eliminates or severely reduces the impact on your week of commuting, which everyone agrees is a massive pain. Longer term, most people are going to end up on hybrid working, so they will still need to be in easy reach of their place of work most of the time - so still all the positives of city life, but with one of main drawbacks gone. It's also noticeable how much more negative people got on home working when the temperature went over 30 degrees and they remembered they didn't have air conditioning.
Worth pointing out that the sorts of people who post on here are not necessarily typical. The majority of people will not have the option of working from home. Factory operatives, shop workers, teachers, firefighters - all jobs much more easy carried out in person rather than remotely. Even in city centres, at least half of jobs will need someone actually there to do them.
The last time I was at South Mimms there were lakes of piss everywhere, two fat women brawling and what looked a people trafficking operation going on in the car park.
The last time I was at South Mimms there were lakes of piss everywhere, two fat women brawling and what looked a people trafficking operation going on in the car park.
London has topped the rankings out of 80 cities around the globe, for a higher quality of life and social capital, according to a new report by BCG.
Can't be right, Provincial PB reckons it's a shit hole.
Not quite - it's the least shit of 80 shitholes around the globe.
I'm just amused by London apparently having 2.5 restaurants per person.
Out of interest, what places in the world are not classified as "shitholes"? Any cities, at all? If you don't personally like living in high density population areas, that's fine, but it comes across as somewhat obtuse not to recognise that lots of people do (at latest estimates, three quarters of the world's population).
It is definitely obtuse
Of course loads of people love living in cities. Personally, I love going to them, and having the opportunity to leave again.
I doubt 3/4 of the world's population love living in Cities, though. Many live in cities simply because 19th and 20th century industrial and service industry practices accelerated the process of concentration into larger and larger urban settlements around the globe.
I point at the alacrity with which a great many people have leaped to remote working as evidence for this latent desire *not* to be City dwellers.
[Note that I am making no unsupported claims for "a majority" of people wanting to leave Cities, just that it may not be so much of a 'choice'.]
I agree that a lot of the people who live in cities don't much "love" it - but, since it's often much cheaper to live elsewhere, it's difficult to see what is preventing people from moving out of them en masse. My working assumption is therefore that most people living in cities have determined that the positives outweigh the negatives.
On remote working - the key is that it eliminates or severely reduces the impact on your week of commuting, which everyone agrees is a massive pain. Longer term, most people are going to end up on hybrid working, so they will still need to be in easy reach of their place of work most of the time - so still all the positives of city life, but with one of main drawbacks gone. It's also noticeable how much more negative people got on home working when the temperature went over 30 degrees and they remembered they didn't have air conditioning.
Worth pointing out that the sorts of people who post on here are not necessarily typical. The majority of people will not have the option of working from home. Factory operatives, shop workers, teachers, firefighters - all jobs much more easy carried out in person rather than remotely. Even in city centres, at least half of jobs will need someone actually there to do them.
Factory operatives are rarely found working in city centres, and all the others are also needed in the countryside - and would be needed in much greater numbers if all the other city-based workers started moving out there.
They are all mouth and no trousers, but they *are* the 4 times elected government with their biggest ever vote this time on the biggest ever turnout.
On the issues you raise they need to say some fairly simple things. Currency: will maintain the existing sterling currency union until admitted to the Euro Border: the same solution as GB eventually reaches with the EU will apply (so not really a Scotland-specific problem) Pensions: a positive migration policy to have sufficient workers to pay them EU timing - apply for membership on morning 1 of independence etc
They won't. There seems to be a fear that if they go into detail people may start ignoring heart and feel and instead start making considered judgements...
on entry to the EU, Entry into the EU wouldn't be automatic and would take a number of years of negotiating and implementing. all other things would follow on from that delay. the SNP would also be forced to hold a referendum on EU membership which they'd not be certain to win (although it's highly likely). The EU might also say that Scotland needs to finish negotiating with rUK first before they can start negotiating with them. on the currency, they said that they'd keep sterling in the last indiref and the UK said no. That wouldn't change in indiref2. There's no saying that people would vote for joining the Euro and the SNP couldn't force it on the country on the border, even if Scotland joins the EU it will take a fair amount of time and a medium term position on the border would be required which the UK would be stupid to base the timing of anything on the entry of Scotland into the EU. A fixed and determined situation needs to be agreed initially. Pensions, it's not about the new liabilities which is the problems it is the share of existing liabilities which will be the problem. (plus the share of accumulated debt).
I get all of that, I am just saying that none of it is the insurmountable "see, you can't go" barrier that is suggested.
EU membership? They are well practised at adding new countries, and in this case they would be reincorporating a territory. Easy enough to show alignment as Scotland is already aligned, and even as a UK nation it won't become particularly unaligned in the next few years.
On the currency the situation has changed from 2014. A 2023 (?) question where "independence means the EU and the Euro" is different to 2014 where EU membership wasn't part of the equation. It doesn't matter what the position was back then or what people thought, things have changed.
I think you are trying to complicate the border issue. Scotland will become an EU member state. By the time independence happens GB would already have a settled operating model for its EU border. Whatever we eventually end up doing with France is what you would do with Scotland, and as GB doesn't recognise the EU as anything other than a 3rd country it hardly matters if Scotland is an actual EU member or just an ascension state.
The border issue is more complex than you think. I get the impression from the SNP that they's want the equivalent frictionless border that currently exists. that's not going to happen, and I suspect that it'll be a long time before the UK has a settled border policy with the EU and it'll be nothing like what existed before. There may be some improvements but nothing major and not until Labour win an election (which won't happen before Sind)
Scotland are in the same position in relation to the UK as the UK was with the EU. They may think that they have the aces in the negotiations but if they want 'independence with all of the existing benefits' then they will not get it.
When it comes to the currency, the referendum will only be for Independence future scottish elections would have to deal with joining the EU and the Euro.
Remember the Tory Brexiteers plugging a digital border for Ireland? There's the solution for Scotland. Just need to invent one first...
Technological solutions to the border issues are possible but there's nowhere in the world where it has been implemented. you're talking somewhere around 10-20 years before it becomes a possibility (assuming someone puts the cash into it).
As I said, If the Scots think that the border post independence will be the same as it is now then they are mistaken.
You halfwit , we don't give a crap about minutiae, that is all part of the negotiations, as RP said , Fatso gave away NI with his digital border , we will just extend across the water and though our land border, problem solved. Stop shaking like a big jelly and worrying about things you have no clue about.
It isn't a problem solved because the Tories were lying to people about a digital border. My point was that those same liars now bleat about Scotland and say there is no border solution.
My favourite is Leicester Forest, has been for many years. It’s a cut above imo. I wouldn’t make a special trip there – it’s not that good! – but I always choose it if I’m on the M1. I actually quite like motorway service stations generally. I like the sense of transience about them, everyone just passing through, taking a pause from life, almost stopping the clock; also (and I don’t know why this is) the level of physical attractiveness of the people you see there tends to be bottom quartile, which boosts my own relative standing in this department above what it usually is. There are times, especially if it’s off peak and in an out of the way location, when I’ve been arguably the most comely man on site.
Rule of thumb for service station is - largely sh*t.
If they sign Grealish and Kane for £250m, how does that work out with financial fair play?
Well they've got £60 million banked from last summer from the Sane money.
Apparently they will try and sell Silva and Sterling, but if that doesn't happen I'm sure Etihad Airways will sign a new £350 million a season sponsorship deal with City because that's the market rate, ahem.
London has topped the rankings out of 80 cities around the globe, for a higher quality of life and social capital, according to a new report by BCG.
Can't be right, Provincial PB reckons it's a shit hole.
Not quite - it's the least shit of 80 shitholes around the globe.
I'm just amused by London apparently having 2.5 restaurants per person.
Out of interest, what places in the world are not classified as "shitholes"? Any cities, at all? If you don't personally like living in high density population areas, that's fine, but it comes across as somewhat obtuse not to recognise that lots of people do (at latest estimates, three quarters of the world's population).
Depending on how you measure it and the extent to which you include suburbs and commuter towns between 54-76% of the global population live in urban areas.
My favourite is Leicester Forest, has been for many years. It’s a cut above imo. I wouldn’t make a special trip there – it’s not that good! – but I always choose it if I’m on the M1. I actually quite like motorway service stations generally. I like the sense of transience about them, everyone just passing through, taking a pause from life, almost stopping the clock; also (and I don’t know why this is) the level of physical attractiveness of the people you see there tends to be bottom quartile, which boosts my own relative standing in this department above what it usually is. There are times, especially if it’s off peak and in an out of the way location, when I’ve been arguably the most comely man on site.
Neither Biden nor Harris on the Dem ticket in 2024.
It would need a big price as it takes few things to happen for it to come off. Biden has to go or be removed via the 25th because his brain's a piece of shit. Somebody (Buttigieg, AOC?) has to run and beat Kamala to the Democrat nomination.
The only thing that makes a slightly attractive betting notion is that if Biden does get hauled off then the Democrats must realise that Kamala can't possibly beat Trump (for it is he).
The problem is I think Harris will dig her heels in on this. Why is she going to give up the shot of the Presidency when it is so close, especially when she knows the "Black Woman" card is strong in the party? She stands aside, she is never getting another chance at the Presidency.
Which is why it has to be something that pushes her out as opposed to someone having a chat.
Trump's dream scenario is of course ill health forces Biden, his most dangerous opponent, to stand down before 2024 and Harris takes over. As VP if Biden is forced to step down Harris would automatically become POTUS in his place and would then be near unstoppable for the 2024 Democratic nomination. Trump would then easily win the GOP nomination and would fancy his chances of portraying Harris as an ultra woke Hillary so that he becomes the first President to lose re election but then return 4 years later to the Oval office since Grover Cleveland in 1893.
If Biden's health holds though he will almost certainly run for re election
The Republicans are making noises about blocking the confirmation of a VP if Harris becomes President (and therefore no longer has the casting Senate vote). Charming and reasonable people!
Universities Minister Michelle Donelan says "It's the route out of the pandemic" but she assures "we certainly not be introducing a vaccine requirement for any form of education."
Talk Radio
So, vaxports for university is banged on then...
Not until it's too late to implement.
Indeed. Stand by for an announcement from Johnson on 1st September.
Neither Biden nor Harris on the Dem ticket in 2024.
It would need a big price as it takes few things to happen for it to come off. Biden has to go or be removed via the 25th because his brain's a piece of shit. Somebody (Buttigieg, AOC?) has to run and beat Kamala to the Democrat nomination.
The only thing that makes a slightly attractive betting notion is that if Biden does get hauled off then the Democrats must realise that Kamala can't possibly beat Trump (for it is he).
Unless he gets hauled off, too. Though he'd probably struggle a bit more.
If they sign Grealish and Kane for £250m, how does that work out with financial fair play?
Well they've got £60 million banked from last summer from the Sane money.
Apparently they will try and sell Silva and Sterling, but if that doesn't happen I'm sure Etihad Airways will sign a new £350 million a season sponsorship deal with City because that's the market rate, ahem.
Was listening to Athletic football podcast and they didn't think Sterling was going anywhere after the Euros. And there is a problem that across Europe, outside EPL nobody has any money to pay big buck / wages outside perhaps PSG...and no City player wants to go to say Spurs as part of in kind swap.
I thought they have been told they can't play those silly games anymore?
All sub 15C 0700 temps this week, after a long run of warm mornings up to 21C. Have we seen the best of the summer already?
12.6C here. At least it's sunny, and I think the forecast is optimistic after the weekend.
So possibly Good Morning is appropriate.
And Ydoethur, two (so far) teachers in my family plan to continue to do so, although another has left the classroom to become an Ed Psych. Currently just finished, satisfactorily, the first year.
So we have @Nigelb with 100% out, me with 67% out, and you with 33% out.
We need somebody with 0% here to complete the set.
Incidentally, I am seriously pissed off with Essex after yesterday. How on earth did you win from the position five overs out?
Do other countries have such ferocious attrition of teachers? Or is it a British problem? Apart from the staffing issues it seems very wasteful.
Or is it like the loss of Foundation Doctors a symptom of much deeper malaise within the system?
Difficult to compare with other countries because teacher systems tend to be quite idiosyncratic. So for example in France it is expected a large number of graduates go into teaching, are assigned to a school, do it for 2-3 years and then do something else. But in the USA, where many state systems would be roughly comparable, around 8% a year leave teaching whereas a ‘natural’ rate would be about 3%. That’s a bit lower than ours but it’s not ridiculously different.
There are reasons for it. First of all, it’s bloody hard work, and not jus pt because of the nature of the beast. Teachers are the only profession I know where hard work is almost a fetish, so you will (true story) hear a primary school teacher boast that she takes her marking everywhere, even to her daughter’s swimming lessons. Such an attitude does bring pressure on the others and to those who don’t know how to find their own pace and stick to it, can be fatal.
There is also far too much pointless meddling by non-experts in media and the government which makes it very difficult to do effectively. Spielman is the epitome of this with her comical ineptitude designed to generate click bait in the Mail, but it affects most of the DfE. Woodhead was of course another example. It’s rather demoralising to be told you’re useless and lazy by functionally illiterate lowlifes who work 37 hour weeks in cosy offices when working 60 hour weeks under tough conditions.
And, of course, a lot go into teaching with high ideals and/or the expectation of short hours and long holidays and find the reality so different they just can’t take it. Woodhead, again, being an example, although he was forced out of teaching for other reasons.
But I think ultimately teaching in the British way is just very hard to do. To encourage discussion, thought, creativity and do it among 30 people a significant minority of whom don’t want to be there and can actually be violent is very, very tough. To do it on average 4.6 times a day forty weeks a year is even harder.
"Teachers are the only profession I know where hard work is almost a fetish" - try solicitors or accountants, both obsessed with chargeable hours and presenteeism.
Er...yes. That doesn’t surprise me.
But we don’t get paid extra for it.
Our contracts are based on working 1263 hours a year. 31.5 hours a week for 40 weeks a year.
No full time teacher works 31.5 hours per week. You have to spend 22 hours in the classroom alone, ignoring tutor time, break duties and then planning and marking.
All those long lazy summer holidays, a cushy number
You as as right as ever @malcolmg: have you considered becoming a teacher? I’m sure you would find it very easy.
I have it much tougher but enjoy my job, it is very interesting and I am in position as the specialist hat I can do as I wish, but put in lots of hours. I am also a bit old to change careers and take a large pay cut.
My favourite is Leicester Forest, has been for many years. It’s a cut above imo. I wouldn’t make a special trip there – it’s not that good! – but I always choose it if I’m on the M1. I actually quite like motorway service stations generally. I like the sense of transience about them, everyone just passing through, taking a pause from life, almost stopping the clock; also (and I don’t know why this is) the level of physical attractiveness of the people you see there tends to be bottom quartile, which boosts my own relative standing in this department above what it usually is. There are times, especially if it’s off peak and in an out of the way location, when I’ve been arguably the most comely man on site.
Rule of thumb for service station is - largely sh*t.
As a trainee solicitor I once attended court with a barrister who was inordinately proud of the fact that he obtained the first alcohol licence for a service station. I remember during lunch at the same hearing he told me that law wasn't a profession anyone should get into and I should just invest in tech stocks. This was in about March 2000.
All sub 15C 0700 temps this week, after a long run of warm mornings up to 21C. Have we seen the best of the summer already?
2nd half Aug is supposed to be 30c all the way...
No thanks. I spent most of June and July in daytime temps up to 32, nighttime temps around 22 and almost no rain. I’ve had enough. I was looking forward to a cool August.
Edinburgh Festival ahead of the game for once with its temporary venues:
If they sign Grealish and Kane for £250m, how does that work out with financial fair play?
Well they've got £60 million banked from last summer from the Sane money.
Apparently they will try and sell Silva and Sterling, but if that doesn't happen I'm sure Etihad Airways will sign a new £350 million a season sponsorship deal with City because that's the market rate, ahem.
Was listening to Athletic football podcast and they didn't think Sterling was going anywhere after the Euros. And there is a problem that across Europe, outside EPL nobody has any money to pay big buck / wages outside perhaps PSG...and no City player wants to go to say Spurs as part of in kind swap.
I thought they have been told they can't play those silly games anymore?
Apparently they are going to try.
Argument will be airlines are suffering because of the pandemic and will spend lots of money on advertising.
The other way they may and get around it is get another club in the City Football Group to buy players. New York City buy Fernandinho for £50 million.
The position Barcelona find themselves is worth sharing as well, they cannot register new players/contracts until they make cuts so they cannot register Aguero, Depay, and Messi so the solution they are thinking of is letting them sign for Segunda División teams and then loan them to Barca for this season.
They are all mouth and no trousers, but they *are* the 4 times elected government with their biggest ever vote this time on the biggest ever turnout.
On the issues you raise they need to say some fairly simple things. Currency: will maintain the existing sterling currency union until admitted to the Euro Border: the same solution as GB eventually reaches with the EU will apply (so not really a Scotland-specific problem) Pensions: a positive migration policy to have sufficient workers to pay them EU timing - apply for membership on morning 1 of independence etc
They won't. There seems to be a fear that if they go into detail people may start ignoring heart and feel and instead start making considered judgements...
on entry to the EU, Entry into the EU wouldn't be automatic and would take a number of years of negotiating and implementing. all other things would follow on from that delay. the SNP would also be forced to hold a referendum on EU membership which they'd not be certain to win (although it's highly likely). The EU might also say that Scotland needs to finish negotiating with rUK first before they can start negotiating with them. on the currency, they said that they'd keep sterling in the last indiref and the UK said no. That wouldn't change in indiref2. There's no saying that people would vote for joining the Euro and the SNP couldn't force it on the country on the border, even if Scotland joins the EU it will take a fair amount of time and a medium term position on the border would be required which the UK would be stupid to base the timing of anything on the entry of Scotland into the EU. A fixed and determined situation needs to be agreed initially. Pensions, it's not about the new liabilities which is the problems it is the share of existing liabilities which will be the problem. (plus the share of accumulated debt).
More bollox on Scotland, you missed the share of all the assets at home and abroad , including the tax havens, that will more than cover any pension liabilities.
I've not seen any comprehensive data on this but I'd be surprised if it was enough to cover both pension liabilities and the hole in the day to day spending in Scotland. if it was enough I'd also be surprised if it was possible to use it both as collateral for national debt and to liquidate it to fund other things.
In that case England will be well F***** then as they will be getting a similar share so unless Scotland is all pensioners your theory does not hold water. As to hole in day to day spending , that is a Westminster issue, they do all the borrowing and living beyond their means , we merely get a portion of the money we send south back , they splaff it up many walls on vanity and jingoism.
Neither Biden nor Harris on the Dem ticket in 2024.
It would need a big price as it takes few things to happen for it to come off. Biden has to go or be removed via the 25th because his brain's a piece of shit. Somebody (Buttigieg, AOC?) has to run and beat Kamala to the Democrat nomination.
The only thing that makes a slightly attractive betting notion is that if Biden does get hauled off then the Democrats must realise that Kamala can't possibly beat Trump (for it is he).
The problem is I think Harris will dig her heels in on this. Why is she going to give up the shot of the Presidency when it is so close, especially when she knows the "Black Woman" card is strong in the party? She stands aside, she is never getting another chance at the Presidency.
Which is why it has to be something that pushes her out as opposed to someone having a chat.
Scottish Government PR machine in overdrive to try to persuade people that the shameful record of drug deaths under their governance is actually someone else's fault, and they they are actually the brave underdogs fighting for the right to improve lives. Revoltingly dishonest.
Have the English overlords explained the explosion in deaths down south yet.
While bad they’re only one fifth the level of Scotland’s.
You think that is great do you, rocketing numbers but it is ok , we have nobbled Scotland so they look worse. Not difficult to see you are a Tory with that callousness.
London has topped the rankings out of 80 cities around the globe, for a higher quality of life and social capital, according to a new report by BCG.
Can't be right, Provincial PB reckons it's a shit hole.
Not quite - it's the least shit of 80 shitholes around the globe.
I'm just amused by London apparently having 2.5 restaurants per person.
Out of interest, what places in the world are not classified as "shitholes"? Any cities, at all? If you don't personally like living in high density population areas, that's fine, but it comes across as somewhat obtuse not to recognise that lots of people do (at latest estimates, three quarters of the world's population).
Depending on how you measure it and the extent to which you include suburbs and commuter towns between 54-76% of the global population live in urban areas.
Neither Biden nor Harris on the Dem ticket in 2024.
It would need a big price as it takes few things to happen for it to come off. Biden has to go or be removed via the 25th because his brain's a piece of shit. Somebody (Buttigieg, AOC?) has to run and beat Kamala to the Democrat nomination.
The only thing that makes a slightly attractive betting notion is that if Biden does get hauled off then the Democrats must realise that Kamala can't possibly beat Trump (for it is he).
The problem is I think Harris will dig her heels in on this. Why is she going to give up the shot of the Presidency when it is so close, especially when she knows the "Black Woman" card is strong in the party? She stands aside, she is never getting another chance at the Presidency.
Which is why it has to be something that pushes her out as opposed to someone having a chat.
Trump's dream scenario is of course ill health forces Biden, his most dangerous opponent, to stand down before 2024 and Harris takes over. As VP if Biden is forced to step down Harris would automatically become POTUS in his place and would then be near unstoppable for the 2024 Democratic nomination. Trump would then easily win the GOP nomination and would fancy his chances of portraying Harris as an ultra woke Hillary so that he becomes the first President to lose re election but then return 4 years later to the Oval office since Grover Cleveland in 1893.
If Biden's health holds though he will almost certainly run for re election
The Republicans are making noises about blocking the confirmation of a VP if Harris becomes President (and therefore no longer has the casting Senate vote). Charming and reasonable people!
They would need to win control of either the House or Senate in 2022 to do that however.
Under the 25th amendment of the US constitution a new VP nominated by the President outside of a Presidential election when the office becomes vacant only needs to be confirmed by a simple majority of both chambers of Congress
If they sign Grealish and Kane for £250m, how does that work out with financial fair play?
Well they've got £60 million banked from last summer from the Sane money.
Apparently they will try and sell Silva and Sterling, but if that doesn't happen I'm sure Etihad Airways will sign a new £350 million a season sponsorship deal with City because that's the market rate, ahem.
Was listening to Athletic football podcast and they didn't think Sterling was going anywhere after the Euros. And there is a problem that across Europe, outside EPL nobody has any money to pay big buck / wages outside perhaps PSG...and no City player wants to go to say Spurs as part of in kind swap.
I thought they have been told they can't play those silly games anymore?
Apparently they are going to try.
Argument will be airlines are suffering because of the pandemic and will spend lots of money on advertising.
The other way they may and get around it is get another club in the City Football Group to buy players. New York City buy Fernandinho for £50 million.
The position Barcelona find themselves is worth sharing as well, they cannot register new players/contracts until they make cuts so they cannot register Aguero, Depay, and Messi so the solution they are thinking of is letting them sign for Segunda División teams and then loan them to Barca for this season.
Apparently Chelsea have a big problem with the collapse in the market. They have so many players who aren't good enough but on massive wages. They might have to end up paying big portions of their wages at any new club they sell them to, or try to settle the contracts.
Neither Biden nor Harris on the Dem ticket in 2024.
It would need a big price as it takes few things to happen for it to come off. Biden has to go or be removed via the 25th because his brain's a piece of shit. Somebody (Buttigieg, AOC?) has to run and beat Kamala to the Democrat nomination.
The only thing that makes a slightly attractive betting notion is that if Biden does get hauled off then the Democrats must realise that Kamala can't possibly beat Trump (for it is he).
The problem is I think Harris will dig her heels in on this. Why is she going to give up the shot of the Presidency when it is so close, especially when she knows the "Black Woman" card is strong in the party? She stands aside, she is never getting another chance at the Presidency.
Which is why it has to be something that pushes her out as opposed to someone having a chat.
Trump's dream scenario is of course ill health forces Biden, his most dangerous opponent, to stand down before 2024 and Harris takes over. As VP if Biden is forced to step down Harris would automatically become POTUS in his place and would then be near unstoppable for the 2024 Democratic nomination. Trump would then easily win the GOP nomination and would fancy his chances of portraying Harris as an ultra woke Hillary so that he becomes the first President to lose re election but then return 4 years later to the Oval office since Grover Cleveland in 1893.
If Biden's health holds though he will almost certainly run for re election
The Republicans are making noises about blocking the confirmation of a VP if Harris becomes President (and therefore no longer has the casting Senate vote). Charming and reasonable people!
They would need to win control of either the House or Senate in 2022 to do that however.
Under the 25th amendment of the US constitution a new VP nominated by the President outside of a Presidential election when the office becomes vacant only needs to be confirmed by a simple majority of both chambers of Congress
The Democrats do not have a simple majority in the Senate until a replacement VP is confirmed.
Just thinking someone on the thread should make the argument *for* Kamala Harris.
She's ambitious, solid, and good at delivering the lines she's given. Biden has a bunch of competent people around him who are good at writing good lines to deliver. If she does what she's told can't they find ways to address the negatives? Like if people think she's going to defund the police, wait until there's a riot and then get the police to hold an unappealing rioter down while she kicks them in the head, that sort of thing. I know people generally don't rate her highly but they also probably don't know her that well either, a decent campaign should be able to fill in the gaps with... whatever the polling says they need to fill in the gaps with.
Decathlon and Heptathlon are mental events when you think about it. What's required to run fast 100m is totally different to being able to throw a javilin or shot put.
London has topped the rankings out of 80 cities around the globe, for a higher quality of life and social capital, according to a new report by BCG.
Can't be right, Provincial PB reckons it's a shit hole.
Not quite - it's the least shit of 80 shitholes around the globe.
I'm just amused by London apparently having 2.5 restaurants per person.
Out of interest, what places in the world are not classified as "shitholes"? Any cities, at all? If you don't personally like living in high density population areas, that's fine, but it comes across as somewhat obtuse not to recognise that lots of people do (at latest estimates, three quarters of the world's population).
Depending on how you measure it and the extent to which you include suburbs and commuter towns between 54-76% of the global population live in urban areas.
There are cities and cities of course: what about the residents of Wells or St David’s?
On the boundary between a thinly populated urban area and a rural area but still likely the former, rural areas are now defined as those with a population density below 150 inhabitants per km2
They are all mouth and no trousers, but they *are* the 4 times elected government with their biggest ever vote this time on the biggest ever turnout.
On the issues you raise they need to say some fairly simple things. Currency: will maintain the existing sterling currency union until admitted to the Euro Border: the same solution as GB eventually reaches with the EU will apply (so not really a Scotland-specific problem) Pensions: a positive migration policy to have sufficient workers to pay them EU timing - apply for membership on morning 1 of independence etc
They won't. There seems to be a fear that if they go into detail people may start ignoring heart and feel and instead start making considered judgements...
on entry to the EU, Entry into the EU wouldn't be automatic and would take a number of years of negotiating and implementing. all other things would follow on from that delay. the SNP would also be forced to hold a referendum on EU membership which they'd not be certain to win (although it's highly likely). The EU might also say that Scotland needs to finish negotiating with rUK first before they can start negotiating with them. on the currency, they said that they'd keep sterling in the last indiref and the UK said no. That wouldn't change in indiref2. There's no saying that people would vote for joining the Euro and the SNP couldn't force it on the country on the border, even if Scotland joins the EU it will take a fair amount of time and a medium term position on the border would be required which the UK would be stupid to base the timing of anything on the entry of Scotland into the EU. A fixed and determined situation needs to be agreed initially. Pensions, it's not about the new liabilities which is the problems it is the share of existing liabilities which will be the problem. (plus the share of accumulated debt).
I get all of that, I am just saying that none of it is the insurmountable "see, you can't go" barrier that is suggested.
EU membership? They are well practised at adding new countries, and in this case they would be reincorporating a territory. Easy enough to show alignment as Scotland is already aligned, and even as a UK nation it won't become particularly unaligned in the next few years.
On the currency the situation has changed from 2014. A 2023 (?) question where "independence means the EU and the Euro" is different to 2014 where EU membership wasn't part of the equation. It doesn't matter what the position was back then or what people thought, things have changed.
I think you are trying to complicate the border issue. Scotland will become an EU member state. By the time independence happens GB would already have a settled operating model for its EU border. Whatever we eventually end up doing with France is what you would do with Scotland, and as GB doesn't recognise the EU as anything other than a 3rd country it hardly matters if Scotland is an actual EU member or just an ascension state.
The border issue is more complex than you think. I get the impression from the SNP that they's want the equivalent frictionless border that currently exists. that's not going to happen, and I suspect that it'll be a long time before the UK has a settled border policy with the EU and it'll be nothing like what existed before. There may be some improvements but nothing major and not until Labour win an election (which won't happen before Sind)
Scotland are in the same position in relation to the UK as the UK was with the EU. They may think that they have the aces in the negotiations but if they want 'independence with all of the existing benefits' then they will not get it.
When it comes to the currency, the referendum will only be for Independence future scottish elections would have to deal with joining the EU and the Euro.
Remember the Tory Brexiteers plugging a digital border for Ireland? There's the solution for Scotland. Just need to invent one first...
Technological solutions to the border issues are possible but there's nowhere in the world where it has been implemented. you're talking somewhere around 10-20 years before it becomes a possibility (assuming someone puts the cash into it).
As I said, If the Scots think that the border post independence will be the same as it is now then they are mistaken.
You halfwit , we don't give a crap about minutiae, that is all part of the negotiations, as RP said , Fatso gave away NI with his digital border , we will just extend across the water and though our land border, problem solved. Stop shaking like a big jelly and worrying about things you have no clue about.
It isn't a problem solved because the Tories were lying to people about a digital border. My point was that those same liars now bleat about Scotland and say there is no border solution.
I do realise that, I was merely mocking the poster who sees huge hurdles that can only ever apply to Scotland. Going by the halfwits on here I wonder how all the other countries in the world survive, how do they have borders, central banks , currencies , etc.
If they sign Grealish and Kane for £250m, how does that work out with financial fair play?
Well they've got £60 million banked from last summer from the Sane money.
Apparently they will try and sell Silva and Sterling, but if that doesn't happen I'm sure Etihad Airways will sign a new £350 million a season sponsorship deal with City because that's the market rate, ahem.
Was listening to Athletic football podcast and they didn't think Sterling was going anywhere after the Euros. And there is a problem that across Europe, outside EPL nobody has any money to pay big buck / wages outside perhaps PSG...and no City player wants to go to say Spurs as part of in kind swap.
I thought they have been told they can't play those silly games anymore?
Apparently they are going to try.
Argument will be airlines are suffering because of the pandemic and will spend lots of money on advertising.
The other way they may and get around it is get another club in the City Football Group to buy players. New York City buy Fernandinho for £50 million.
The position Barcelona find themselves is worth sharing as well, they cannot register new players/contracts until they make cuts so they cannot register Aguero, Depay, and Messi so the solution they are thinking of is letting them sign for Segunda División teams and then loan them to Barca for this season.
Apparently Chelsea have a big problem with the collapse in the market. They have so many players who aren't good enough but on massive wages. They might have to end up paying big portions of their wages at any new club they sell them to, or try to settle the contracts.
There's a few clubs about to get screwed.
One of the reasons I expect Kane to end at City, Spurs need the money.
That new stadium was built on the plans the concerts and NFL matches helping pay for it, oh and the fans turning up.
The pandemic absolutely shit the bed for Spurs and Levy.
Dropping out of the Champions League for two seasons and counting wasn't in the plan.
Scottish Government PR machine in overdrive to try to persuade people that the shameful record of drug deaths under their governance is actually someone else's fault, and they they are actually the brave underdogs fighting for the right to improve lives. Revoltingly dishonest.
Have the English overlords explained the explosion in deaths down south yet.
While bad they’re only one fifth the level of Scotland’s.
You think that is great do you, rocketing numbers but it is ok , we have nobbled Scotland so they look worse. Not difficult to see you are a Tory with that callousness.
Motes & Beams Malc.
And AFAIK the issue with drug deaths in Scotland is more to do with pills than injections - so “safe injection rooms” main purpose is to pick a fight with London, rather than seriously address the problem.
If they sign Grealish and Kane for £250m, how does that work out with financial fair play?
Well they've got £60 million banked from last summer from the Sane money.
Apparently they will try and sell Silva and Sterling, but if that doesn't happen I'm sure Etihad Airways will sign a new £350 million a season sponsorship deal with City because that's the market rate, ahem.
Was listening to Athletic football podcast and they didn't think Sterling was going anywhere after the Euros. And there is a problem that across Europe, outside EPL nobody has any money to pay big buck / wages outside perhaps PSG...and no City player wants to go to say Spurs as part of in kind swap.
I thought they have been told they can't play those silly games anymore?
Apparently they are going to try.
Argument will be airlines are suffering because of the pandemic and will spend lots of money on advertising.
The other way they may and get around it is get another club in the City Football Group to buy players. New York City buy Fernandinho for £50 million.
The position Barcelona find themselves is worth sharing as well, they cannot register new players/contracts until they make cuts so they cannot register Aguero, Depay, and Messi so the solution they are thinking of is letting them sign for Segunda División teams and then loan them to Barca for this season.
Apparently Chelsea have a big problem with the collapse in the market. They have so many players who aren't good enough but on massive wages. They might have to end up paying big portions of their wages at any new club they sell them to, or try to settle the contracts.
There's a few clubs about to get screwed.
One of the reasons I expect Kane to end at City, Spurs need the money.
That new stadium was built on the plans the concerts and NFL matches helping pay for it, oh and the fans turning up.
The pandemic absolutely shit the bed for Spurs and Levy.
Dropping out of the Champions League for two seasons and counting wasn't in the plan.
If they sign Grealish and Kane for £250m, how does that work out with financial fair play?
Well they've got £60 million banked from last summer from the Sane money.
Apparently they will try and sell Silva and Sterling, but if that doesn't happen I'm sure Etihad Airways will sign a new £350 million a season sponsorship deal with City because that's the market rate, ahem.
Was listening to Athletic football podcast and they didn't think Sterling was going anywhere after the Euros. And there is a problem that across Europe, outside EPL nobody has any money to pay big buck / wages outside perhaps PSG...and no City player wants to go to say Spurs as part of in kind swap.
I thought they have been told they can't play those silly games anymore?
Apparently they are going to try.
Argument will be airlines are suffering because of the pandemic and will spend lots of money on advertising.
The other way they may and get around it is get another club in the City Football Group to buy players. New York City buy Fernandinho for £50 million.
The position Barcelona find themselves is worth sharing as well, they cannot register new players/contracts until they make cuts so they cannot register Aguero, Depay, and Messi so the solution they are thinking of is letting them sign for Segunda División teams and then loan them to Barca for this season.
Apparently Chelsea have a big problem with the collapse in the market. They have so many players who aren't good enough but on massive wages. They might have to end up paying big portions of their wages at any new club they sell them to, or try to settle the contracts.
There's a few clubs about to get screwed.
One of the reasons I expect Kane to end at City, Spurs need the money.
That new stadium was built on the plans the concerts and NFL matches helping pay for it, oh and the fans turning up.
The pandemic absolutely shit the bed for Spurs and Levy.
Dropping out of the Champions League for two seasons and counting wasn't in the plan.
Tottenham have 2 NFL games this year scheduled (October 10th and 17th).
If they sign Grealish and Kane for £250m, how does that work out with financial fair play?
Well they've got £60 million banked from last summer from the Sane money.
Apparently they will try and sell Silva and Sterling, but if that doesn't happen I'm sure Etihad Airways will sign a new £350 million a season sponsorship deal with City because that's the market rate, ahem.
Was listening to Athletic football podcast and they didn't think Sterling was going anywhere after the Euros. And there is a problem that across Europe, outside EPL nobody has any money to pay big buck / wages outside perhaps PSG...and no City player wants to go to say Spurs as part of in kind swap.
I thought they have been told they can't play those silly games anymore?
Apparently they are going to try.
Argument will be airlines are suffering because of the pandemic and will spend lots of money on advertising.
The other way they may and get around it is get another club in the City Football Group to buy players. New York City buy Fernandinho for £50 million.
The position Barcelona find themselves is worth sharing as well, they cannot register new players/contracts until they make cuts so they cannot register Aguero, Depay, and Messi so the solution they are thinking of is letting them sign for Segunda División teams and then loan them to Barca for this season.
Apparently Chelsea have a big problem with the collapse in the market. They have so many players who aren't good enough but on massive wages. They might have to end up paying big portions of their wages at any new club they sell them to, or try to settle the contracts.
There's a few clubs about to get screwed.
One of the reasons I expect Kane to end at City, Spurs need the money.
That new stadium was built on the plans the concerts and NFL matches helping pay for it, oh and the fans turning up.
The pandemic absolutely shit the bed for Spurs and Levy.
Dropping out of the Champions League for two seasons and counting wasn't in the plan.
The new stadium is a mill around the clubs neck.
It wouldn't have been, it was funded with decent interest rates, say compared to the rates Arsenal had for Ashburton Grove.
The pandemic came along and then it became a mill.
If they sign Grealish and Kane for £250m, how does that work out with financial fair play?
Well they've got £60 million banked from last summer from the Sane money.
Apparently they will try and sell Silva and Sterling, but if that doesn't happen I'm sure Etihad Airways will sign a new £350 million a season sponsorship deal with City because that's the market rate, ahem.
Was listening to Athletic football podcast and they didn't think Sterling was going anywhere after the Euros. And there is a problem that across Europe, outside EPL nobody has any money to pay big buck / wages outside perhaps PSG...and no City player wants to go to say Spurs as part of in kind swap.
I thought they have been told they can't play those silly games anymore?
Apparently they are going to try.
Argument will be airlines are suffering because of the pandemic and will spend lots of money on advertising.
The other way they may and get around it is get another club in the City Football Group to buy players. New York City buy Fernandinho for £50 million.
The position Barcelona find themselves is worth sharing as well, they cannot register new players/contracts until they make cuts so they cannot register Aguero, Depay, and Messi so the solution they are thinking of is letting them sign for Segunda División teams and then loan them to Barca for this season.
Apparently Chelsea have a big problem with the collapse in the market. They have so many players who aren't good enough but on massive wages. They might have to end up paying big portions of their wages at any new club they sell them to, or try to settle the contracts.
There's a few clubs about to get screwed.
One of the reasons I expect Kane to end at City, Spurs need the money.
That new stadium was built on the plans the concerts and NFL matches helping pay for it, oh and the fans turning up.
The pandemic absolutely shit the bed for Spurs and Levy.
Dropping out of the Champions League for two seasons and counting wasn't in the plan.
Tottenham have 2 NFL games this year scheduled (October 10th and 17th).
That should help them, they had a couple of revenue boosting gigs cancelled last summer, Lady Gaga and Guns'n'Roses.
Just thinking someone on the thread should make the argument *for* Kamala Harris.
She's ambitious, solid, and good at delivering the lines she's given. Biden has a bunch of competent people around him who are good at writing good lines to deliver. If she does what she's told can't they find ways to address the negatives? Like if people think she's going to defund the police, wait until there's a riot and then get the police to hold an unappealing rioter down while she kicks them in the head, that sort of thing. I know people generally don't rate her highly but they also probably don't know her that well either, a decent campaign should be able to fill in the gaps with... whatever the polling says they need to fill in the gaps with.
I think Harris is quite likely to wind up as the Democrat candidate - in addition to the above, she ticks multiple diversity boxes (hugely important for a good chunk of the primary electorate), is roughly the right age and highly experienced. The problem is that she's easy to paint as a west coast liberal out of touch with swing voters in the Rust Belt who was only selected for internal DNC identity politicking reasons. She is therefore Donald Trump's dream opponent.
But really, all the chart at the top of the header shows is that Biden is rated as more likely to run again than he was a few months ago (which, all else being equal, is inevitable over the course of his term unless he suffers a health setback or outright resigns). P(Biden or Harris) has remained more-or-less constant throughout the timeframe shown.
If they sign Grealish and Kane for £250m, how does that work out with financial fair play?
Well they've got £60 million banked from last summer from the Sane money.
Apparently they will try and sell Silva and Sterling, but if that doesn't happen I'm sure Etihad Airways will sign a new £350 million a season sponsorship deal with City because that's the market rate, ahem.
Was listening to Athletic football podcast and they didn't think Sterling was going anywhere after the Euros. And there is a problem that across Europe, outside EPL nobody has any money to pay big buck / wages outside perhaps PSG...and no City player wants to go to say Spurs as part of in kind swap.
I thought they have been told they can't play those silly games anymore?
Apparently they are going to try.
Argument will be airlines are suffering because of the pandemic and will spend lots of money on advertising.
The other way they may and get around it is get another club in the City Football Group to buy players. New York City buy Fernandinho for £50 million.
The position Barcelona find themselves is worth sharing as well, they cannot register new players/contracts until they make cuts so they cannot register Aguero, Depay, and Messi so the solution they are thinking of is letting them sign for Segunda División teams and then loan them to Barca for this season.
Apparently Chelsea have a big problem with the collapse in the market. They have so many players who aren't good enough but on massive wages. They might have to end up paying big portions of their wages at any new club they sell them to, or try to settle the contracts.
There's a few clubs about to get screwed.
One of the reasons I expect Kane to end at City, Spurs need the money.
That new stadium was built on the plans the concerts and NFL matches helping pay for it, oh and the fans turning up.
The pandemic absolutely shit the bed for Spurs and Levy.
Dropping out of the Champions League for two seasons and counting wasn't in the plan.
The new stadium is a mill around the clubs neck.
It wouldn't have been, it was funded with decent interest rates, say compared to the rates Arsenal had for Ashburton Grove.
The pandemic came along and then it became a mill.
Honestly, it is a fantastic stadium.
Sure but it has affected Spurs as it badly affected Arsenal. And yes I.meant millstone.
My favourite is Leicester Forest, has been for many years. It’s a cut above imo. I wouldn’t make a special trip there – it’s not that good! – but I always choose it if I’m on the M1. I actually quite like motorway service stations generally. I like the sense of transience about them, everyone just passing through, taking a pause from life, almost stopping the clock; also (and I don’t know why this is) the level of physical attractiveness of the people you see there tends to be bottom quartile, which boosts my own relative standing in this department above what it usually is. There are times, especially if it’s off peak and in an out of the way location, when I’ve been arguably the most comely man on site.
Rule of thumb for service station is - largely sh*t.
As a trainee solicitor I once attended court with a barrister who was inordinately proud of the fact that he obtained the first alcohol licence for a service station. I remember during lunch at the same hearing he told me that law wasn't a profession anyone should get into and I should just invest in tech stocks. This was in about March 2000.
In the long run he was probably right. So long as you picked the right ones.
Hmmm. Plantations of Sitka are great for wildlife. Was that sponsored by the forestry industry, by any chance...?
Pine martens are apparently the real solution to Grey squirrels. They Greys spend more time on the ground than Red squirrels and aren't quite as agile, so are easier pickings.
(There's a similar thing with Water voles and Otters - Otters drive out the non-native American mink, so Water voles do better where Otters are present)
I did wonder too.
"This work was funded by Forestry and Land Scotland, an executive agency of the Scottish Government responsible for managing the national forest estate."
So the Forestry Commission (Scottish branch), then!
In England the FC are generally trying to get rid of monoculture plantations. I thought the same applied in Scotland, so this seems like an odd article.
Sitka is crap and certainly not good unless it was for the punters getting tax relief dodges. Would not surprise me though , someone will be milking it for sure.
Sturgeon on brink of cooperation deal with Scottish Greens Exclusive: agreement would cement a pro-independence majority at Holyrood and may give Greens ministerial seats
The formal deal, which will stop short of a full coalition of the kind agreed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats under David Cameron and Nick Clegg in 2010, would give the Scottish National party and Scottish Greens a clear majority of seats at Holyrood.
It would allow the first minister to present a strong pro-climate agenda in advance of the Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow this November, and outvote anti-independence parties in Holyrood.
It would be the first time after 14 years in power the SNP had signed a formal deal with another party
The deal will present Scottish Labour, currently Holyrood’s third-largest party, with a significant political challenge. It is likely to give Sturgeon a resilient centre-left majority and removes her need to seek deals with Labour to get policies through the devolved parliament.
the Conservatives are taking a softer line on the potential for a fresh independence referendum
Forgive my pedantry, but if there is a formal deal which gives Greens ministerial seats then in what way does it stop short of full coalition?
Very good question, which the article fails to answer.
Any agreement which gives both parties seats in Cabinet, a shared programme of legislation and an agreed Budget is a coalition. End of.
It would be a sensible assumption that the Green Party will get the Environment brief. If they are in government but not in coalition then what? Are the SNP handing the entire environment brief and policy over to the Green Party to run independently?
Either way, Scotland elected 73 explicitly pro-independence MSPs giving a comfortable majority. Despite HYUFD's endless whining that it isn't a majority, it is. I will be greatly entertained to watch nippy bleat on about a referendum without actually producing one, but that is the "settled will of the Scottish people" or whatever the Tories latest phrase is.
Good morning
I agree with you about an indyref2 mandate but I genuinely believe it will not happen this side of the next GE
@HYUFD make lots of antagonistic comments on the subject but in truth we are little over 2 and a half years from GE 24 believe it or not and that is not long, especially with covid still an issue
Furthermore and notwithstanding the gung-ho nature of the Nationalists they have not even started to provide an answer to the big issues including
Currency Hard border Pensions The timing of re-admittance to the EU Investment decision deferred due to unknowns and uncertainty
(to name a few)
Additionally, there has been a drift away by the Scots themselves to even holding indyref2, let alone voting for it, that it seems to me that it is unlikely to happen anytime soon
They are all mouth and no trousers, but they *are* the 4 times elected government with their biggest ever vote this time on the biggest ever turnout.
On the issues you raise they need to say some fairly simple things. Currency: will maintain the existing sterling currency union until admitted to the Euro Border: the same solution as GB eventually reaches with the EU will apply (so not really a Scotland-specific problem) Pensions: a positive migration policy to have sufficient workers to pay them EU timing - apply for membership on morning 1 of independence etc
They won't. There seems to be a fear that if they go into detail people may start ignoring heart and feel and instead start making considered judgements...
1) There is no "currency union" currently. There is a single currency for a single country. London parties last time around said there would be no currency union with iScotland. 2) The act of Union created the common travel and customs area - repealing that ends both. What it is replaced with is not within the gift of the Scottish government. Also, see below. 3) Positive immigration militates against a common travel area. 4) EU membership militates against a common customs area.
The weird thing about the Sindy debate is that obviously there are similarities with Brexit, and positions may be reversed on it (eg UK/Indy Scotland not being able to guarantee what the EU/rUK will agree to, or assuming they will do it as it is in their interest) but it's only rarely we acknowledge the similarities and explain why it wi be different, usually just employing the same tactics as Brexit, in reverse (eg opportunities not difficulty from borders, or it now mattering if one area does not vote in favour).
Comments
Migrant Yoons: all Felis catus in the UK should get a vote
Nightjack was an interesting case - but others have reported concerted attempts to shut them down. Often by rewriting Professional Standards to make any kind of reporting/blogging an offence....
Very middle class service stations mind you. The Waitrose of service stations. You don't necessarily get the ugliness of clientele you enjoy at LFE.
I'm not sure, though, that people ar LFE are that ugly though. Service stations are the sorts of classless place which draw a fairly representative sample of humanity. British people really are that unattractive.
The best thing about LFE is is name. I very much enjoy the triple 'st' sound.
There are exceptional people who can get into higher positions without much funding track record, but that's probably increasingly hard (as with everything - if you're high profile and other universities want you then you can negotiate or move). One retired professor colleague of mine, pre-eminent in his field, is kind of proud of the fact that he was never, ever a principle investigator (lead) on a grant, although he was co-investigator on very many.
Pine martens are apparently the real solution to Grey squirrels. They Greys spend more time on the ground than Red squirrels and aren't quite as agile, so are easier pickings.
(There's a similar thing with Water voles and Otters - Otters drive out the non-native American mink, so Water voles do better where Otters are present)
They like to see my creative side uncensored. Has opened a few doors.
We’ve hit the motherload recently.
With Indyref2 preparations coming under my aegis.
I even get to commission opinion polls.
"I don't see Biden picking Harris"
I was right, reality was wrong.
"This work was funded by Forestry and Land Scotland, an executive agency of the Scottish Government responsible for managing the national forest estate."
https://natureconservation.pensoft.net/article/62864/
The negotiations following a yes vote would involve some big questions for the Scottish people. Do you want to remain closely tied to the rest of the UK or do you want to be closely tied to the EU?
if the answer is to remain tied to the UK then you'll find people will vote to stay in the UK. if it's to join the EU then you can't have the same relationship with the rest of the UK that currently exists.
WRT NI, i don't think that Johnson actually cares about NI. he wanted to break away from the EU if that meant compromise over NI so be it.
The only thing that makes a slightly attractive betting notion is that if Biden does get hauled off then the Democrats must realise that Kamala can't possibly beat Trump (for it is he).
In England the FC are generally trying to get rid of monoculture plantations. I thought the same applied in Scotland, so this seems like an odd article.
Which is why it has to be something that pushes her out as opposed to someone having a chat.
https://forestryandland.gov.scot/what-we-do/biodiversity-and-conservation/biodiversity/our-work-for-biodiversity
But they will have plenty left over from the past, of course.
On remote working - the key is that it eliminates or severely reduces the impact on your week of commuting, which everyone agrees is a massive pain. Longer term, most people are going to end up on hybrid working, so they will still need to be in easy reach of their place of work most of the time - so still all the positives of city life, but with one of main drawbacks gone. It's also noticeable how much more negative people got on home working when the temperature went over 30 degrees and they remembered they didn't have air conditioning.
Talk Radio
So, vaxports for university is banged on then...
Record for a British player, also British record for an incoming player.
https://twitter.com/David_Ornstein/status/1422855251204493313
Edit - The Times says the next 24 hours.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/manchester-city-set-to-complete-imminent-signing-of-100m-jack-grealish-xlb3n6f56
If Biden's health holds though he will almost certainly run for re election
I remember visiting a steak restaurant at Leicester Forest in the late 70s - served alcohol, too I think.
It was grander still back when it opened, apparently:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-35532494
Apparently they will try and sell Silva and Sterling, but if that doesn't happen I'm sure Etihad Airways will sign a new £350 million a season sponsorship deal with City because that's the market rate, ahem.
Though 60% of those urban dwellers live in cities or settlements with less than 1 million people
https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/foresight/topic/continuing-urbanisation/urbanisation-worldwide_en
Though he'd probably struggle a bit more.
I thought they have been told they can't play those silly games anymore?
Argument will be airlines are suffering because of the pandemic and will spend lots of money on advertising.
The other way they may and get around it is get another club in the City Football Group to buy players. New York City buy Fernandinho for £50 million.
The position Barcelona find themselves is worth sharing as well, they cannot register new players/contracts until they make cuts so they cannot register Aguero, Depay, and Messi so the solution they are thinking of is letting them sign for Segunda División teams and then loan them to Barca for this season.
As to hole in day to day spending , that is a Westminster issue, they do all the borrowing and living beyond their means , we merely get a portion of the money we send south back , they splaff it up many walls on vanity and jingoism.
(Though she allegedly did with Willie Brown).
Under the 25th amendment of the US constitution a new VP nominated by the President outside of a Presidential election when the office becomes vacant only needs to be confirmed by a simple majority of both chambers of Congress
Something with our routine?
Watching without sound or context - she looked like she had a limp heading up the stairs...
Edit - Seen it, very sad for her
She's ambitious, solid, and good at delivering the lines she's given. Biden has a bunch of competent people around him who are good at writing good lines to deliver. If she does what she's told can't they find ways to address the negatives? Like if people think she's going to defund the police, wait until there's a riot and then get the police to hold an unappealing rioter down while she kicks them in the head, that sort of thing. I know people generally don't rate her highly but they also probably don't know her that well either, a decent campaign should be able to fill in the gaps with... whatever the polling says they need to fill in the gaps with.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9859887/Now-80-16-24-year-olds-England-Covid-antibodies-official-figures-show.html
One of the reasons I expect Kane to end at City, Spurs need the money.
That new stadium was built on the plans the concerts and NFL matches helping pay for it, oh and the fans turning up.
The pandemic absolutely shit the bed for Spurs and Levy.
Dropping out of the Champions League for two seasons and counting wasn't in the plan.
And AFAIK the issue with drug deaths in Scotland is more to do with pills than injections - so “safe injection rooms” main purpose is to pick a fight with London, rather than seriously address the problem.
The pandemic came along and then it became a mill.
Honestly, it is a fantastic stadium.
But really, all the chart at the top of the header shows is that Biden is rated as more likely to run again than he was a few months ago (which, all else being equal, is inevitable over the course of his term unless he suffers a health setback or outright resigns). P(Biden or Harris) has remained more-or-less constant throughout the timeframe shown.
They took a £175 million loan from the BoE last summer.
Which they then refinanced for £250 million this summer.
So long as you picked the right ones.