Mr. G, the Scots shouldn't be too cocky. Let us assume Yes wins; if you've spent nine months crowing about not having any debts (due largely to Scottish banks and Scottish chancellors) how well-disposed would the English, Welsh and Northern Irish be towards Scotland?
It's not smart, or polite. Bilateral trade with the UK will be very important for an independent Scotland, and pissing off 53m or so potential customers isn't good for trade.
The announcement by the Treasury would seem to set a precedent for the privileges, responsibilities and liabilities of the UK now and post-Scottish separation, should it occur. I would imagine a typical Scot would be either unmoved or likelier to vote Yes based on the debt argument.
MD, They have already said , even though not obliged , that they will take a fair share of both the debts and the assets of the UK. Rump UK position may be to not be fair and keep the assets and the debt as it will be to their favour. It will be down to the negotiations and all it does is clarify the position regarding the debt honestly rather than the previous dishonest unionist position. Nobody in Scotland is crowing , we want to make our own decisions and have our fair share of what is rightly ours, bought and paid for. We are even magnanimous enough to take our share of debt which we did not incur , almost all of it down to Labour and now Tories in Westminster.
That's fine - just as long as Scotland pays back the debt it did incur for the failed Darien scheme, kindly paid off by generous Englishmen, with three centuries worth of interest.
When a numpty brings up that old crap you know they are a real loser.
You were the one that brought up the origins of when the debt was incurred. I suppose your view is that we should look far enough back in history for when the UK incurred debt, but not far enough for when Scotland incurred debt? How convenient. The reality is that the total debt and total assets of the UK should be split on a per capita basis. Any UK Prime Minister that agrees to anything less deserves to get slaughtered at the polls.
The real significance of today's announcement is that investors rightly believe that Scotland's debt position would be weaker than that of the UK - and that is nothing for the SNP to celebrate.
That's certainly what HMT want Scottish voters to think and why they leaked this to anyone and everyone. Whether it has they impact on Scottish voters that they would like is another issue.
I think HMT is addressing the international bond market and not Scottish voters. But it's a "Victory for Eck!" As no doubt it will be when Edinburgh reneges on its debts, is blocked from the international debt market and has its EU entry vetoed......
The real significance of today's announcement is that investors rightly believe that Scotland's debt position would be weaker than that of the UK - and that is nothing for the SNP to celebrate.
That's certainly what HMT want Scottish voters to think and why they leaked this to anyone and everyone. Whether it has the impact on Scottish voters that they would like is another issue.
Nice cynicism on both sides of the 'Scottish' debate
Really? Can you tell me how much it is, and how much therefore is 'England's' national debt?
I would imagine Scotland's national debt is the UK national debt times the population of Scotland divided by the UK's population - or about 120 billion. Gain independence and try to not pay up - please.
Darling sums up Salmond's "Sterling is an asset to be shared" nicely:
“It appears that the First Minister needs a basic lesson in economics. The UK Pound is a monetary system underwritten entirely by the UK Government. It’s not an asset to be shared like the CD collection after a divorce.”
Darling sums up Salmond's "Sterling is an asset to be shared" nicely:
“It appears that the First Minister needs a basic lesson in economics. The UK Pound is a monetary system underwritten entirely by the UK Government. It’s not an asset to be shared like the CD collection after a divorce.”
Darling sums up Salmond's "Sterling is an asset to be shared" nicely:
“It appears that the First Minister needs a basic lesson in economics. The UK Pound is a monetary system underwritten entirely by the UK Government. It’s not an asset to be shared like the CD collection after a divorce.”
The real significance of today's announcement is that investors rightly believe that Scotland's debt position would be weaker than that of the UK - and that is nothing for the SNP to celebrate.
That's certainly what HMT want Scottish voters to think and why they leaked this to anyone and everyone. Whether it has the impact on Scottish voters that they would like is another issue.
Nice cynicism on both sides of the 'Scottish' debate
Which way do you think it will go ?
I cant remember seeing any particular value in any of the markets related to the referendum. So I havent staked a penny on it! (Meaning the markets expect a 'no' vote and I agree that's the most likely outcome. Stuart Dickson has pointed to the 'yes' odds being too short and the 'no' too long as opportunities for trading and while there may be something to that it's not something I have pursued.)
Surely the reason ruk wants to guarantee all the debt is so that it can retain the control of interest rates and money supply without having to consult or take into account what will in effect be another country.
Under international law it has to retain all the debt , Scotland did not sign for the debt , it si owed by the UK and the rump that is left will have to take all the UK liabilities.
Malcolm you're being a bit of a tit this afternoon. Neither Scotland nor the rUK incurred or owed this debt. The whole UK did/does. To suggest that Scotland as an independent nation would come into life with no debt is preposterously silly. If a new Scotland's opening gambit on the international stage was to default & bitterly antagonise England then I humbly suggest that might not end well for Scotland.
Patrick perhaps some more time would have benefitted your point. “The international law is not clear. The Arbitration Commission on Yugoslavia declared that successor states must ‘together settle all aspects of secession by agreement’. However, when agreement cannot be reached, it appears that the presumption is that debt remains with the predecessor state.” Can you tell me apart from Ireland any Commonwealth country that paid debt to UK on independence, you have plenty of options.
Also , it is only in your mind that Scotland has ever said they will default. On the contrary the position has been very clear that they will take their share of assets and debts.
Ireland was part of a single state with the rest of the UK - as is Scotland. The Empire/Commonwealth countries were not. It is an entirely fatuous comparison.
International market comment on the prospects for the UK:
"Scotland is 8 percent of UK GDP and while that is not to be sneezed at, its not the game changer for Britain that leaving the European Union would be," said Holt.
The real significance of today's announcement is that investors rightly believe that Scotland's debt position would be weaker than that of the UK - and that is nothing for the SNP to celebrate.
That's certainly what HMT want Scottish voters to think and why they leaked this to anyone and everyone. Whether it has the impact on Scottish voters that they would like is another issue.
They didn't leak it. They informed the media quite openly. They did so because they were starting to get enquiries about the status of British debt and feared it would start to impact on bond prices.
@anotherDave Many immigrants come for a limited number of years in their 20s and 30s, when they require few state services. The Government turns a tidy profit on such immigrants.
"In 2012, a quarter (25.9%) of all births in England and Wales were to mothers born outside the United Kingdom. In London this figure was 57.4%. In the London Boroughs of Newham, Brent, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea over 70% of births are to mothers born outside the UK."
Darling sums up Salmond's "Sterling is an asset to be shared" nicely:
“It appears that the First Minister needs a basic lesson in economics. The UK Pound is a monetary system underwritten entirely by the UK Government. It’s not an asset to be shared like the CD collection after a divorce.”
For those who believe fracking, or shale-oil, tarsands, etc are the answer, the article on EROI is sobering.
"Murphy & Hall examined the relation between EROI, oil price and economic growth over the past 40 years and found that economic growth occurred during periods that combined low oil prices with an increasing oil supply. They also found that high oil prices led to an increase in energy expenditures as a share of GDP, which has led historically to recessions. Lastly, they found that oil prices and EROI are inversely related, which implies that increasing the oil supply by exploiting unconventional and hence lower EROI sources of oil would require high oil prices. This created what Murphy & Hall called the ‘economic growth paradox: increasing the oil supply to support economic growth will require high oil prices that will undermine that economic growth’"
"Transitioning to lower EROI energy sources has a number of implications for global society. First, it will reallocate energy that was previously destined for society towards the energy industry alone. This will, over the long run, lower the net energy available to society, creating significant headwinds for economic growth. Secondly, transitioning to lower EROI oil means that the price of oil will remain high compared to the past, which will also place contractionary pressure on the economy. Third, as we try to increase oil supplies from unconventional sources, we will accelerate the resource acquisition rate, and therefore the degradation of our natural environment..."
Mr. Llama, you bounder! Yorkshire's the beating heart of England, and the mighty Yorkshiremen that stride the moors are descendents of Saxons and ferocious Vikings, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Hang on, Mr. D.. It wasn't me that said Yorkshiremen are Dane's with speech impediments, it was in fact an immigrant to our shores who lives in Warwickshire.
P.S. Are you sure Yorkshiremen are descendants of the Saxons. I thought that the Saxons settled in the south in places like Sussex (the clue is in the name).
Ken Clarke hits out at Cameron immigration claims Cabinet minister Ken Clarke disputes Prime Minister's claims that EU rules have led to "vast migrations" and says that foreigners make the UK "far more exciting and healthier".
With the Coalition on target to let 1 million new migrants net in over 5 years only the 'Mad Monk of Europhilia' could come out with such a demented rant
“The idea that you can have some fundamental debate that somehow stops all these foreigners coming here is rather typical rightwing, nationalist escapism, I think.”
Ken Clarke has really jumped the shark. He's saying that having a debate about reducing immigration is "rightwing" and "nationalist". I expect this crap from the Labour party but not from Conservative cabinet ministers. Will Cameron have the balls to discipline him?
Refreshing to hear a senior Tory speaking the honest truth about immigration.
Yes, concerns about reducing the wages of the working class, shortages of school places, delays in the NHS, rocketing property prices, home-grown terror threats, the importation of cultures of female genital mutilation and honour killings, women dressing like second class citizens - it's all just right-wing nationalism. I grew up thinking the left tried to battle the causes of low incomes, high living costs, sexism and homophobia, but apparently not.
It's time for an open, honest debate about immigration.
One part of that is accepting that, in addition to the clear benefits, there are genuine concerns and problems associated with immigration.
The other part of an open honest debate should be accepting that the discussion is often characterised by scaremongering, scapegoating, ignorance and prejudice, particularly from certain quarters.
A call for an "open, honest debate" that ends with a bit of passive aggression... very good
The real significance of today's announcement is that investors rightly believe that Scotland's debt position would be weaker than that of the UK - and that is nothing for the SNP to celebrate.
Mr. Llama, the Saxons had all of England. Whilst the Vikings established a presence in many areas they didn't obliterate the locals utterly (unlike Caesar who massacred half a million Germanian tribesmen during peace talks).
''The other part of an open honest debate should be accepting that the discussion is often characterised by scaremongering, scapegoating, ignorance and prejudice, particularly from certain quarters.''
Doesn't sound like a particularly open and honest debate to me.
Mr. G, the Scots shouldn't be too cocky. Let us assume Yes wins; if you've spent nine months crowing about not having any debts (due largely to Scottish banks and Scottish chancellors) how well-disposed would the English, Welsh and Northern Irish be towards Scotland?
It's not smart, or polite. Bilateral trade with the UK will be very important for an independent Scotland, and pissing off 53m or so potential customers isn't good for trade.
The announcement by the Treasury would seem to set a precedent for the privileges, responsibilities and liabilities of the UK now and post-Scottish separation, should it occur. I would imagine a typical Scot would be either unmoved or likelier to vote Yes based on the debt argument.
MD, They have already said , even though not obliged , that they will take a fair share of both the debts and the assets of the UK. Rump UK position may be to not be fair and keep the assets and the debt as it will be to their favour. It will be down to the negotiations and all it does is clarify the position regarding the debt honestly rather than the previous dishonest unionist position. Nobody in Scotland is crowing , we want to make our own decisions and have our fair share of what is rightly ours, bought and paid for. We are even magnanimous enough to take our share of debt which we did not incur , almost all of it down to Labour and now Tories in Westminster.
That's fine - just as long as Scotland pays back the debt it did incur for the failed Darien scheme, kindly paid off by generous Englishmen, with three centuries worth of interest.
When a numpty brings up that old crap you know they are a real loser.
You were the one that brought up the origins of when the debt was incurred. I suppose your view is that we should look far enough back in history for when the UK incurred debt, but not far enough for when Scotland incurred debt? How convenient. The reality is that the total debt and total assets of the UK should be split on a per capita basis. Any UK Prime Minister that agrees to anything less deserves to get slaughtered at the polls.
Exactly what I said, however you would not have much confidence that Cameron / Osborne / etc would be seen as being very capable of negotiating good deals. I personally would not trust them to run a bath hence my optimism. Also almost all of that debt is from last 10-20 years.
Really? Can you tell me how much it is, and how much therefore is 'England's' national debt?
I would imagine Scotland's national debt is the UK national debt times the population of Scotland divided by the UK's population - or about 120 billion. Gain independence and try to not pay up - please.
so assets will cover it easily and mean that rump UK only have to give us 10- 20 billion in cash.
Darling sums up Salmond's "Sterling is an asset to be shared" nicely:
“It appears that the First Minister needs a basic lesson in economics. The UK Pound is a monetary system underwritten entirely by the UK Government. It’s not an asset to be shared like the CD collection after a divorce.”
The real significance of today's announcement is that investors rightly believe that Scotland's debt position would be weaker than that of the UK - and that is nothing for the SNP to celebrate.
The real significance of today's announcement is that investors rightly believe that Scotland's debt position would be weaker than that of the UK - and that is nothing for the SNP to celebrate.
''The other part of an open honest debate should be accepting that the discussion is often characterised by scaremongering, scapegoating, ignorance and prejudice, particularly from certain quarters.''
Doesn't sound like a particularly open and honest debate to me.
One thing about immigration - the argument is always made that it is needed because we need more workers to support the retired
But in the long run - And that long run is what people on the enviromental side debate wrt climate change - isn't that just a giant human ponzi scheme, as people will keep living longer and longer... ?
@anotherDave Many immigrants come for a limited number of years in their 20s and 30s, when they require few state services. The Government turns a tidy profit on such immigrants.
"In 2012, a quarter (25.9%) of all births in England and Wales were to mothers born outside the United Kingdom. In London this figure was 57.4%. In the London Boroughs of Newham, Brent, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea over 70% of births are to mothers born outside the UK."
"Looking after the 15.4 million people in England with at least one long-term condition already takes up 70% of the NHS's £110bn budget"
It's the elderly who comprise most of the costs of the NHS.
Quite so,but why anyone should think that is anything but the result of successive government policies is beyond me. If one spends decades encouraging people to live healthier lifestyles one shouldn't be surprised when they start to live for much longer and so cost much much more in health care and pensions.
If HMG really wanted to save big bucks in the NHS and social care fields they could do worse than abolishing the smoking ban, slash the taxes on fags and booze and encourage people to take much less exercise (keeping someone vaguely comfortable as they die early (and usually quite quickly) of the resultant diseases would be much, much cheaper than treating all the expensive ailments they get when they live long lives and forking out all that money for care homes).
Really? Can you tell me how much it is, and how much therefore is 'England's' national debt?
I would imagine Scotland's national debt is the UK national debt times the population of Scotland divided by the UK's population - or about 120 billion. Gain independence and try to not pay up - please.
so assets will cover it easily and mean that rump UK only have to give us 10- 20 billion in cash.
Erm... assets ain't cash. The UK has no money. Scotland would rightly get it's share of assets. Sub bases. Hospitals. Land. A share of the Post Office. etc. The Northern North Sea too I imagine. But on day 1 Scotland would be borrowing (not sure which currency) and owing. It could not print/QE as the UK does, so would need immediately to either balance the books or find market purchasers of its debt (the BoE would not be a buyer). This need not be a problem - but you'd have to hope Salmond has a clear route to national solvency that the market buys into. Right now he does not.
Darling sums up Salmond's "Sterling is an asset to be shared" nicely:
“It appears that the First Minister needs a basic lesson in economics. The UK Pound is a monetary system underwritten entirely by the UK Government. It’s not an asset to be shared like the CD collection after a divorce.”
One thing about the climate change debate - the 'changeists' might have a better chance of being believed if it hadn't been used as an excuse to hike everyone's energy bills up for the last umpteen years - seeing the proceeds trousered by the likes of Tim Yeo and Chris Huhne !
There is a scientific debate to be had but the interference of politicians in scientific matters really rankles.
@anotherDave Many immigrants come for a limited number of years in their 20s and 30s, when they require few state services. The Government turns a tidy profit on such immigrants.
"In 2012, a quarter (25.9%) of all births in England and Wales were to mothers born outside the United Kingdom. In London this figure was 57.4%. In the London Boroughs of Newham, Brent, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea over 70% of births are to mothers born outside the UK."
"Looking after the 15.4 million people in England with at least one long-term condition already takes up 70% of the NHS's £110bn budget"
It's the elderly who comprise most of the costs of the NHS.
Your position was that immigrants were not a drain on state services. That is obviously not the case.
Individual immigrants may be a drain on state services. Collectively, the country does very well out of them.
No it does not.
"...the report of the House of Lords Economic Committee in April 2008 was a watershed. They concluded, evidently to their surprise, that:
“The overall conclusion from existing evidence is that immigration has very small impacts of GDP per capita, whether these impacts are positive or negative. This conclusion is in line with findings of studies of the economic impact of immigration in other countries, including the US”."
Really? Can you tell me how much it is, and how much therefore is 'England's' national debt?
I would imagine Scotland's national debt is the UK national debt times the population of Scotland divided by the UK's population - or about 120 billion. Gain independence and try to not pay up - please.
so assets will cover it easily and mean that rump UK only have to give us 10- 20 billion in cash.
Erm... assets ain't cash. The UK has no money. Scotland would rightly get it's share of assets. Sub bases. Hospitals. Land. A share of the Post Office. etc. The Northern North Sea too I imagine. But on day 1 Scotland would be borrowing (not sure which currency) and owing. It could not print/QE as the UK does, so would need immediately to either balance the books or find market purchasers of its debt (the BoE would not be a buyer). This need not be a problem - but you'd have to hope Salmond has a clear route to national solvency that the market buys into. Right now he does not.
Our share of assets includes the reserves , gold , contents of art galleries , museums , etc etc. Given the concentration around London I am sure they will stump up cash rather than sending goods. No doubt they will also want to keep most of their willy waving kit so kerching again. We have plenty of oil to mortgage.
@anotherDave Many immigrants come for a limited number of years in their 20s and 30s, when they require few state services. The Government turns a tidy profit on such immigrants.
"In 2012, a quarter (25.9%) of all births in England and Wales were to mothers born outside the United Kingdom. In London this figure was 57.4%. In the London Boroughs of Newham, Brent, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea over 70% of births are to mothers born outside the UK."
"Looking after the 15.4 million people in England with at least one long-term condition already takes up 70% of the NHS's £110bn budget"
It's the elderly who comprise most of the costs of the NHS.
Your position was that immigrants were not a drain on state services. That is obviously not the case.
Individual immigrants may be a drain on state services. Collectively, the country does very well out of them.
No it does not.
"...the report of the House of Lords Economic Committee in April 2008 was a watershed. They concluded, evidently to their surprise, that:
“The overall conclusion from existing evidence is that immigration has very small impacts of GDP per capita, whether these impacts are positive or negative. This conclusion is in line with findings of studies of the economic impact of immigration in other countries, including the US”."
Are the Green Party for real, judging by their comments on Yatterbox re the fracking issue they seem to be the rather dim end of a very ill informed sixth form.
Really? Can you tell me how much it is, and how much therefore is 'England's' national debt?
I would imagine Scotland's national debt is the UK national debt times the population of Scotland divided by the UK's population - or about 120 billion. Gain independence and try to not pay up - please.
so assets will cover it easily and mean that rump UK only have to give us 10- 20 billion in cash.
Erm... assets ain't cash. The UK has no money. Scotland would rightly get it's share of assets. Sub bases. Hospitals. Land. A share of the Post Office. etc. The Northern North Sea too I imagine. But on day 1 Scotland would be borrowing (not sure which currency) and owing. It could not print/QE as the UK does, so would need immediately to either balance the books or find market purchasers of its debt (the BoE would not be a buyer). This need not be a problem - but you'd have to hope Salmond has a clear route to national solvency that the market buys into. Right now he does not.
Our share of assets includes the reserves , gold , contents of art galleries , museums , etc etc. Given the concentration around London I am sure they will stump up cash rather than sending goods. No doubt they will also want to keep most of their willy waving kit so kerching again. We have plenty of oil to mortgage.
Fair enough and our share of the estate will equate to the 9/10ths of the land (based on population) so do tell which parts of Scotland do you want to keep?
''The other part of an open honest debate should be accepting that the discussion is often characterised by scaremongering, scapegoating, ignorance and prejudice, particularly from certain quarters.''
Doesn't sound like a particularly open and honest debate to me.
One thing about immigration - the argument is always made that it is needed because we need more workers to support the retired
But in the long run - And that long run is what people on the enviromental side debate wrt climate change - isn't that just a giant human ponzi scheme, as people will keep living longer and longer... ?
Surely the arguments for free movement of labour (which you can choose to agree or disagree with, I'm stating them rather than attempting to get into an argument):
1. If you don't allow firms to hire who they want *in* the UK, they'll hire the same people outside the UK 2. Firms should be free to hire who they like, irrespective of where they are born 3. We don't seek to prevent people from buying books written by foreign authors, why is it different to stop me from buying the labour of somebody directly? 4. It is morally right to allow people to live and work where they please, so long as they are not an economic burden on their host 5. The birth rate of the UK is below replacement rate, this will (over-time) lead to an inverted pyramid, which will mean an increasingly large number of old people being supported by a small number of young people. Said young people won't want a large portion of their income being expropriated to be spent on a small number of old people, and the most talented will simply leave (see Japan) 6. There are certain industries (such as motor sport, biotech, technology and finance) which work very much on a 'hub' principle. If you do not allow free movement of labour, then it will be very difficult to get critical mass in the UK, and (worse) our best chip designers, or fund managers will leave to work elsewhere. Would Silicon Roundabout exist in its present state if it wasn't so simple to come and work in the UK from all across Europe? 7. Multinational companies will headquarter themselves in places where it is easy to get their people (and their wives to) without undue amounts of bureaucracy. It is benefiial for the UK to have many of these here. 8. Sushi.
Are the Green Party for real, judging by their comments on Yatterbox re the fracking issue they seem to be the rather dim end of a very ill informed sixth form.
Here is the Green party (of England and Wales) line on today's fracking news:
@anotherDave Many immigrants come for a limited number of years in their 20s and 30s, when they require few state services. The Government turns a tidy profit on such immigrants.
"In 2012, a quarter (25.9%) of all births in England and Wales were to mothers born outside the United Kingdom. In London this figure was 57.4%. In the London Boroughs of Newham, Brent, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea over 70% of births are to mothers born outside the UK."
"Looking after the 15.4 million people in England with at least one long-term condition already takes up 70% of the NHS's £110bn budget"
It's the elderly who comprise most of the costs of the NHS.
Your position was that immigrants were not a drain on state services. That is obviously not the case.
Individual immigrants may be a drain on state services. Collectively, the country does very well out of them.
No it does not.
"...the report of the House of Lords Economic Committee in April 2008 was a watershed. They concluded, evidently to their surprise, that:
“The overall conclusion from existing evidence is that immigration has very small impacts of GDP per capita, whether these impacts are positive or negative. This conclusion is in line with findings of studies of the economic impact of immigration in other countries, including the US”."
Migrants' contribution in tax compared with what they draw out in state spending has nothing to do with GDP per capita.
"A recent study by UCL found that migrants in the UK between 1995 and 2011 made a negative fiscal contribution, consuming £95 billion more in benefits and services than they contributed in taxes. Breaking this down, EEA migrants paid £9 billion more in taxes than they consumed in services and non-EEA migrants – who made up the bulk of recent immigration – consumed £104 billion more than they paid in taxes."
Neil..Yes it does..absolute tosh.. a bribe is something you go to prison for in any area of industry.. this proposed payment is a compensation in some form to the local community .. but hey, lets wait for the lights to go out and wait for the Green wail
A recent study by UCL found that migrants in the UK between 1995 and 2011 made a negative fiscal contribution, consuming £95 billion more in benefits and services than they contributed in taxes. Breaking this down, EEA migrants paid £9 billion more in taxes than they consumed in services and non-EEA migrants – who made up the bulk of recent immigration – consumed £104 billion more than they paid in taxes."
"Immigrants to the UK since 2000 have made a "substantial" contribution to public finances, a report says.
The study by University College London said recent immigrants were less likely to claim benefits and live in social housing than people born in Britain.
The authors said rather than being a "drain", their contribution had been "remarkably strong"."
a bribe is something you go to prison for in any area of industry
I think you'll find that the use of the word bribe in this context is completely within its generally accepted meaning. You are wrong to infer any criminal connotations.
I spent part of this weekend boxing up CDs to get rid of. Nine Hays boxes worth, in fact.
With the advent of iTunes, who actually listens to CDs any more? They're just dust-gatherers.
I agree that CDs are a waste of space. However I purchased a turntable and pre-amp at Christmas and now find I spend more time listening to records than digital tracks. Vinyl on a hifi is vastly superior, a warmer sound.
Neil a bribe is a payment made under the table to secure an advantage.If you think that is what the UK government is doing then report them to the police.. don't use the word if you done "Really " mean it but have no objection to the smear being attached.
Neil a bribe is a payment made under the table to secure an advantage.If you think that is what the UK government is doing then report them to the police.. don't use the word if you done "Really " mean it but have no objection to the smear being attached.
I just cant see why you are getting so worked up. The word doesnt necessarily imply criminality so there is no need to call the police.
How is the BBC coverage less slanted? It seems like it is deliberately leaving out the negative side of non-EEA migrants being a net drain.
Personally, I would love to see this breakdown by country, but no think tank ever has the balls to do it. As we saw when someone pointed out the factual truth recently that most electoral fraud was from people of a certain background, you get accused of racism fairly easily.
@anotherDave Many immigrants come for a limited number of years in their 20s and 30s, when they require few state services. The Government turns a tidy profit on such immigrants.
"In 2012, a quarter (25.9%) of all births in England and Wales were to mothers born outside the United Kingdom. In London this figure was 57.4%. In the London Boroughs of Newham, Brent, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea over 70% of births are to mothers born outside the UK."
"Looking after the 15.4 million people in England with at least one long-term condition already takes up 70% of the NHS's £110bn budget"
It's the elderly who comprise most of the costs of the NHS.
Your position was that immigrants were not a drain on state services. That is obviously not the case.
Individual immigrants may be a drain on state services. Collectively, the country does very well out of them.
No it does not.
"...the report of the House of Lords Economic Committee in April 2008 was a watershed. They concluded, evidently to their surprise, that:
“The overall conclusion from existing evidence is that immigration has very small impacts of GDP per capita, whether these impacts are positive or negative. This conclusion is in line with findings of studies of the economic impact of immigration in other countries, including the US”."
Migrants' contribution in tax compared with what they draw out in state spending has nothing to do with GDP per capita.
"A recent study by UCL found that migrants in the UK between 1995 and 2011 made a negative fiscal contribution, consuming £95 billion more in benefits and services than they contributed in taxes. Breaking this down, EEA migrants paid £9 billion more in taxes than they consumed in services and non-EEA migrants – who made up the bulk of recent immigration – consumed £104 billion more than they paid in taxes."
How is the BBC coverage less slanted? It seems like it is deliberately leaving out the negative side of non-EEA migrants being a net drain.
Personally, I would love to see this breakdown by country, but no think tank ever has the balls to do it. As we saw when someone pointed out the factual truth recently that most electoral fraud was from people of a certain background, you get accused of racism fairly easily.
MigrationWatch do point out the wages of EU immigrants varies by grouping old-EU/new-EU.
"Those from the EU 15 earn considerably more than workers from the A8 countries; EU 15 workers have a median wage of £13 per hour compared to the A8 median wage of £7.89. The contribution of the EU15 to the exchequer is therefore greater so combining them with the A8 obscures the impact of the latter.
In any case, the EU 15 are not an immigration problem. The A8 and the forthcoming migrants from Romania and Bulgaria are the most relevant to policy."
Very interesting. So it's quite possible A8 countries have been a net drain. I can only imagine what the numbers must be for places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Somalia and Jamaica where the populations are considerably less skilled.
"Do you want me to report you to the police for inciting criminal activity?!"
LOL. Yes please, as long as my cheque arrives safely.
I do worry about some of the Greens ... eg "One of my biggest fears is that the planet doesn't understand regulations and will react to being pumped with poisonous chemicals."
Should this one be out on her own? I guarantee that she is composed of chemicals, many of them poisonous. Remember Nostradamus .. the dose makes the poison.
Really? Can you tell me how much it is, and how much therefore is 'England's' national debt?
I would imagine Scotland's national debt is the UK national debt times the population of Scotland divided by the UK's population - or about 120 billion. Gain independence and try to not pay up - please.
so assets will cover it easily and mean that rump UK only have to give us 10- 20 billion in cash.
Erm... assets ain't cash. The UK has no money. Scotland would rightly get it's share of assets. Sub bases. Hospitals. Land. A share of the Post Office. etc. The Northern North Sea too I imagine. But on day 1 Scotland would be borrowing (not sure which currency) and owing. It could not print/QE as the UK does, so would need immediately to either balance the books or find market purchasers of its debt (the BoE would not be a buyer). This need not be a problem - but you'd have to hope Salmond has a clear route to national solvency that the market buys into. Right now he does not.
Our share of assets includes the reserves , gold , contents of art galleries , museums , etc etc. Given the concentration around London I am sure they will stump up cash rather than sending goods. No doubt they will also want to keep most of their willy waving kit so kerching again. We have plenty of oil to mortgage.
If Scotland wants to share all assets equally on a per capita basis then does that include North Sea oil and gas?
Could someone please clarify the other parties view on fracking so I'll know who not to vote for in 2015. Obviously the Greens are already out.
Yes indeed we need to get on with it. However,I pity the Frackers,they have a long hard road in front of them. I know from personal experience,I endured much abuse from Greenpeace,FOE,and many assorted unnaffiliated Greens? My process was waste to energy and has now saved over a million tons of fossil fuel. Personal hate mail, physical,and verbal abuse at public meetings,politicians intervening and scoring points,I had the pleasure of giving verbal evidence at 2 Environment Select committee hearings at HOC(not pleasant).Nearly lost my business,and 100 employees. I eventually won after about 10 years. On Fracking,at least all the main parties appear to support it,and good for DC coming out so strongly in favour. I wish I had had political support in my darkest hours.
Neil .. Bribery, by the donor and the recipient is considered to be a crime..But not in Green world..Like I said, the dim end of an ill informed sixth form..Try using the claim against an Individual or a Company, M'Learned friends await...don't forget your cheque book ..
My two pence on two issues discussed in this thread.
Fracking is without doubt beneficial to the country and all parties should encourage it - working with relevant local goverment and local communities.
Athropogenic global warming is happening - 99% of the scientific community fully support the theory. 2013 is likely to be one of the warmest years ever recorded globally. The world will eventually take this issue seriously and action will be taken.
"All the political parties give us plenty of examples of people we should worry about, many of them even frequent this website!"
True, but you seem quite sensible compared with some.
I'd be interested in how the Greens would have reacted when coal mining was first introduced. "Oh no, the earth will spew the miners back up. They don't like it down 'em."
Anyway, I'm confident the NW will react in the right way.
Neil .. Bribery, by the donor and the recipient is considered to be a crime..But not in Green world..Like I said, the dim end of an ill informed sixth form..Try using the claim against an Individual or a Company, M'Learned friends await...don't forget your cheque book ..
Thank goodness no Tory MPs would use the word bribery in the context of politics:
Surely the issue should be skills rather than national origin?
Jamaican Nurses are fine, Pakistani Doctors and Bangladeshi pilots are all welcome, it is their less skilled compatriots that bring down the average financial cost/benefit for migrants.
It is also worth noting that many of our Leicester Somali community hold Dutch or Swedish passports/residency. It is not so easy to distinguish EU15 nationals from others.
Very interesting. So it's quite possible A8 countries have been a net drain. I can only imagine what the numbers must be for places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Somalia and Jamaica where the populations are considerably less skilled.
My two pence on two issues discussed in this thread.
Fracking is without doubt beneficial to the country and all parties should encourage it - working with relevant local goverment and local communities.
Athropogenic global warming is happening - 99% of the scientific community fully support the theory. 2013 is likely to be one of the warmest years ever recorded globally. The world will eventually take this issue seriously and action will be taken.
Hope there is no contradiction above!
What action? There is no action that can be taken, it's called nature.
Comments
Which way do you think it will go ?
“It appears that the First Minister needs a basic lesson in economics. The UK Pound is a monetary system underwritten entirely by the UK Government. It’s not an asset to be shared like the CD collection after a divorce.”
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/scottish-independence-uk-debt-to-be-guaranteed-1-3266159
Will the Teletubbies bring down the North Korean government?
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/shortcuts/2014/jan/13/teletubbies-north-korea-bbc-worldwide
"Scotland is 8 percent of UK GDP and while that is not to be sneezed at, its not the game changer for Britain that leaving the European Union would be," said Holt.
"There is far more anxiety there."
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/01/13/markets-sterling-close-idUKL6N0KN2RL20140113
My wife has ickle feet, like size 3
Adam Boulton to step down as Sky News political editor
Boulton to leave role after 25 years to become anchor of new evening show at broadcaster's Westminster studio
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jan/13/adam-boulton-step-down-sky-news-political-editor
P.S. Are you sure Yorkshiremen are descendants of the Saxons. I thought that the Saxons settled in the south in places like Sussex (the clue is in the name).
F1: John Button, Jenson's father, has died at 70:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/25719879
Doesn't sound like a particularly open and honest debate to me.
Not sure 'only' is exactly the word you were after...
With the advent of iTunes, who actually listens to CDs any more? They're just dust-gatherers.
Check your wallets and purses for Scottish banknotes.
If discovered, exchange them.
If you leave it 'til September they will be worthless.
But in the long run - And that long run is what people on the enviromental side debate wrt climate change - isn't that just a giant human ponzi scheme, as people will keep living longer and longer... ?
If HMG really wanted to save big bucks in the NHS and social care fields they could do worse than abolishing the smoking ban, slash the taxes on fags and booze and encourage people to take much less exercise (keeping someone vaguely comfortable as they die early (and usually quite quickly) of the resultant diseases would be much, much cheaper than treating all the expensive ailments they get when they live long lives and forking out all that money for care homes).
I'm proud of my CD collection, particularly my 12 Commandments of Dance album by The London Boys, which is undoubtedly the greatest CD ever produced.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPs_IksWVaQ
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/4143731/Alex-Salmond-Euro-membership-is-a-strong-argument-for-independence.html
What a prat.
http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/General-election-candidate-takes-decision-step/story-20435727-detail/story.html
apologies if others posted on this earlier.
There is a scientific debate to be had but the interference of politicians in scientific matters really rankles.
"...the report of the House of Lords Economic Committee in April 2008 was a watershed. They concluded, evidently to their surprise, that:
“The overall conclusion from existing evidence is that immigration has very small impacts of GDP per capita, whether these impacts are positive or negative. This conclusion is in line with findings of studies of the economic impact of immigration in other countries, including the US”."
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org.uk/pdfs/BP1_34.pdf
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org.uk/briefing-papers/category/1
1. If you don't allow firms to hire who they want *in* the UK, they'll hire the same people outside the UK
2. Firms should be free to hire who they like, irrespective of where they are born
3. We don't seek to prevent people from buying books written by foreign authors, why is it different to stop me from buying the labour of somebody directly?
4. It is morally right to allow people to live and work where they please, so long as they are not an economic burden on their host
5. The birth rate of the UK is below replacement rate, this will (over-time) lead to an inverted pyramid, which will mean an increasingly large number of old people being supported by a small number of young people. Said young people won't want a large portion of their income being expropriated to be spent on a small number of old people, and the most talented will simply leave (see Japan)
6. There are certain industries (such as motor sport, biotech, technology and finance) which work very much on a 'hub' principle. If you do not allow free movement of labour, then it will be very difficult to get critical mass in the UK, and (worse) our best chip designers, or fund managers will leave to work elsewhere. Would Silicon Roundabout exist in its present state if it wasn't so simple to come and work in the UK from all across Europe?
7. Multinational companies will headquarter themselves in places where it is easy to get their people (and their wives to) without undue amounts of bureaucracy. It is benefiial for the UK to have many of these here.
8. Sushi.
http://greenparty.org.uk/news/2014/01/13/green-party-condemn-government’s-attempt-to-“bribe”-councils-with-fracking-incentives/
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/13/alastair-campbell-labour-lib-dem-coalition-in-2015_n_4589751.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org.uk/pdfs/BP12_4.pdf
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24813467
"Immigrants to the UK since 2000 have made a "substantial" contribution to public finances, a report says.
The study by University College London said recent immigrants were less likely to claim benefits and live in social housing than people born in Britain.
The authors said rather than being a "drain", their contribution had been "remarkably strong"."
The BBC 'less slanted'. OK!!!!
How is the BBC coverage less slanted? It seems like it is deliberately leaving out the negative side of non-EEA migrants being a net drain.
Personally, I would love to see this breakdown by country, but no think tank ever has the balls to do it. As we saw when someone pointed out the factual truth recently that most electoral fraud was from people of a certain background, you get accused of racism fairly easily.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctpb21/doc/cvdustmann.pdf
"Those from the EU 15 earn considerably more than workers from the A8 countries; EU 15 workers have a median wage of £13 per hour compared to the A8 median wage of £7.89. The contribution of the EU15 to the exchequer is therefore greater so combining them with the A8 obscures the impact of the latter.
In any case, the EU 15 are not an immigration problem. The A8 and the forthcoming migrants from Romania and Bulgaria are the most relevant to policy."
http://news.migrationwatch.org.uk/2013/11/response-to-cream-paper-on-contribution-of-migrants-to-economy.html
Hooray for fracking, hooray for bribes.
Could someone please clarify the other parties view on fracking so I'll know who not to vote for in 2015. Obviously the Greens are already out.
Very interesting. So it's quite possible A8 countries have been a net drain. I can only imagine what the numbers must be for places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Somalia and Jamaica where the populations are considerably less skilled.
Pepe Mel has paid for it fortunately !
You can rely on the Daily Fail,
"She may be a highly-paid actress, but she still enjoys saving a few dollars - or, in this case, pounds."
She must have thought....."I will get food poisoning while I am in Britain because it is free"...
Everyone would jump at a chance like that.
"Do you want me to report you to the police for inciting criminal activity?!"
LOL. Yes please, as long as my cheque arrives safely.
I do worry about some of the Greens ... eg "One of my biggest fears is that the planet doesn't understand regulations and will react to being pumped with poisonous chemicals."
Should this one be out on her own? I guarantee that she is composed of chemicals, many of them poisonous. Remember Nostradamus .. the dose makes the poison.
However,I pity the Frackers,they have a long hard road in front of them. I know from personal experience,I endured much abuse from Greenpeace,FOE,and many assorted unnaffiliated Greens? My process was waste to energy and has now saved over a million tons of fossil fuel.
Personal hate mail, physical,and verbal abuse at public meetings,politicians intervening and scoring points,I had the pleasure of giving verbal evidence at 2 Environment Select committee hearings at HOC(not pleasant).Nearly lost my business,and 100 employees.
I eventually won after about 10 years.
On Fracking,at least all the main parties appear to support it,and good for DC coming out so strongly in favour. I wish I had had political support in my darkest hours.
"The does makes the poison" - It was obviously Paracelsus not Nostradamus. The latter was more a spokesman for the Greens.
"waste to energy"
And hooray for "waste to energy" too.
Is there a Brown group I could join?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/politics/christie-feds-investigating-sandy-ads/
Fracking is without doubt beneficial to the country and all parties should encourage it - working with relevant local goverment and local communities.
Athropogenic global warming is happening - 99% of the scientific community fully support the theory. 2013 is likely to be one of the warmest years ever recorded globally. The world will eventually take this issue seriously and action will be taken.
Hope there is no contradiction above!
"All the political parties give us plenty of examples of people we should worry about, many of them even frequent this website!"
True, but you seem quite sensible compared with some.
I'd be interested in how the Greens would have reacted when coal mining was first introduced. "Oh no, the earth will spew the miners back up. They don't like it down 'em."
Anyway, I'm confident the NW will react in the right way.
Lab -2 Con N/C LD +2 UKIP +1 Others N/C
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2013/09/priti-patel-mp-is-it-time-to-apply-the-bribery-act-to-labours-relationship-with-the-unions.html
Or a former Tory MP literally call a Labour policy a bribe:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/26/conservatives-labour-energy-freeze
EDIT: Oh, and it's going back a bit, but Portillo also did it in 2000. I suspect Labour politicians could be found having made similar statement.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/835696.stm
Jamaican Nurses are fine, Pakistani Doctors and Bangladeshi pilots are all welcome, it is their less skilled compatriots that bring down the average financial cost/benefit for migrants.
It is also worth noting that many of our Leicester Somali community hold Dutch or Swedish passports/residency. It is not so easy to distinguish EU15 nationals from others.