politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The currency question just got harder for Yes this week

A one way trend?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10611050/Revealed-The-one-in-nine-schools-where-English-is-not-first-language.html

CarlottaVance said:

or is it only the SNP view that matters?

So sorry, I didn't realise you were still enjoying being Balls mouthpiece so much.
The story you eagerly keep pushing is "Back the Union to keep the pound, says Ed Balls"
He'll be delighted that scottish tories now hang on his every word and think him a real economic sage.

Mick_Pork said:

CarlottaVance said:

or is it only the SNP view that matters?

So sorry, I didn't realise you were still enjoying being Balls mouthpiece so much.
The story you eagerly keep pushing is "Back the Union to keep the pound, says Ed Balls"
He'll be delighted that scottish tories now hang on his every word and think him a real economic sage.

No, the post you replied to was about Jim Sillars & Colin Fox saying that in the event of a 'Yes' vote the Scottish side in any negotiation must represent the views of the people of Scotland - not just those of the SNP.....and as both are in favour of a separate Scottish currency for a separate Scotland, it raises interesting questions on the topic of the thread which I know you would rather not talk about......

SouthamObserver said:

Mick_Pork said:

SouthamObserver said:

taffys said:

Poor old gullible tory Eurosceptics. Will they ever learn?

So far, labour and the libs have managed to kill the referendum bill quietly. You're right that lobby obsessed news correspondents have concentrated on the splits rather than the politics and it is that which has made the news.

Cameron wants them to kill the bill noisily, in full view of an electorate than poll after poll says wants a referendum. Just ahead of an election.

He wants to make sure Ed is going into 2015 wearing a no referendum T shirt, rather than hiding behind a fudge.

It's not going to happen. The timings, as Dave knows, are all wrong. First of all, you have to get the legislation in the form of a private members bill through the Commons; then the Parliament Act only kicks in after 12 months. That is, if the government can invoke the act at all with regards to non-government legislation.

And, of course, only 130 Tory peers voted for the bill. There are 209 of them, If the Tories were really serious about this there may have been more of their supporters around to back it.

Cameron is posturing. And no more. What a surprise.

You would think all the tory Eurosceptics would have caught on by now. Some have and won't give a damn what Cammie says anymore but the truth is most of them want to be fooled.
They want to believe so badly every time they get marched up to the top of the hill. This time the posturing and Cast Iron Pledges will see off Farage and the kippers. Then they can finally get back to ranting about the EU and immigration without Farage spoiling it all by upstaging them and laughing at their puny efforts every single time.

It's tragic to see their eager little faces crushed when reality eventually and inevitably dawns on them and the words turn to dust. Funny yes, but still tragic.

There are 221 Tory peers with voting rights in the Lords. 147 of them voted for the referendum bill; three voted against; 71 did not bother to vote at all. If they had, the legislation would have passed. That's how serious the Tories were and are about this.

The Tory leadership. The immigration Bill shambles does indicate that the tory whipping operation is less than optimal. To say the least.

CarlottaVance said:

Mick_Pork said:

CarlottaVance said:

or is it only the SNP view that matters?

So sorry, I didn't realise you were still enjoying being Balls mouthpiece so much.
The story you eagerly keep pushing is "Back the Union to keep the pound, says Ed Balls"
He'll be delighted that scottish tories now hang on his every word and think him a real economic sage.

No, the post you replied to was

From this story

"Back the Union to keep the pound, says Ed Balls"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10611596/Back-the-Union-to-keep-the-pound-says-Ed-Balls.html

As I said.

Keep pushing Balls as an economic wise man as I'm quite sure that won't come back to haunt you. Repeatedly.

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

I think there is a remarkable lack of real politic about the discussions involving the currency and the LOLR.

London is greedy and ruthless. Ask its competitors in Paris and Frankfurt (if you can find them, I suggest you try Kensington). The idea that everything would simply carry on as before is completely naive. Case after case has shown that trade between countries that separate collapses. This would just be the start.

Would Scotland survive? Of course. But we already have an economy which is overweighted to the public sector, closer to France than the rest of the UK. The loss of such a major industry would be a terrible blow and make the financial constraints that rUK would impose on spending and borrowing as a condition of using the currency extremely hard to bear.

David, quoting bollocks again, it has been well shown that we have little or no more public sector than England. We will need financial institutions in Scotland when independent an dif the English ones move out it will be a good opportunity for new Scottish companies, so as per devolution going to impoverish us , the Torie shave the same old mantra on independence. Do you never question why we have more Pandas than Tory MP's.

Malcolm, that is simply not true. Here are the stats from the Scottish government for Q3 of 2013: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Labour-Market/TrendPublicSectorEmp

It says:

"There were 2,549,000 people employed in Scotland in Q3 2013, an increase of 74,600 (3.0%) over the year. In Q3 2013 public sector employment accounted for 22.7% of total employment, down from 23.5% in the previous year and the lowest proportion seen since the series began in 1999."

In the UK as a whole there are now just over 30m employed with just over 5m working in the public sector, so approximately 17%. We are going in the right direction but there is a long way to go and we are chasing a moving target.

David, i will accept your numbers but last data I saw did not have it as big a difference as that. I really doubt the difference is as big as that. If it was as big a difference why would we not have better public service given they would be awash with people.

SouthamObserver said:

isam said:

A one way trend?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10611050/Revealed-The-one-in-nine-schools-where-English-is-not-first-language.html

Being able to speak more than one language is a tremendous skill to have. We need as many bilingual and trilingual people as possible. Speakers of Portuguese, Spanish, Chinese, Hindi, Punjabi etc will be a tremendous asset to us in the future. The key is to ensure that their English skills are up to scratch. By doing that we are making an investment that has the potential to reap significant rewards.

"Being able to speak more than one language is a tremendous skill to have"

That's true.. but you know as well as I do what the point is here... or do you think 11% (and rising no doubt) of children not having the language of the country they live in as first language is a good thing?

SouthamObserver said:

malcolmg said:

john_zims said:

@Mick_Pork

Assuming 'Yes' wins and currency union happens,Scotland will have a Governor from a foreign country controlling Scotland's monetary policy & a foreign Chancellor controlling Scotland's fiscal policy.

Where's the independence?

You mean like Germany , France , Italy , Spain , etc etc ad infinitum

To an extent. But lessons will also have been learned from what happened in the Eurozone when a crisis did erupt. These will be reflected in the final agreement.

SO , I was merely pointing out that based on his theory all of those countries would not be independent either, which to any sane person is stupid.

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

isam said:

A one way trend?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10611050/Revealed-The-one-in-nine-schools-where-English-is-not-first-language.html

Being able to speak more than one language is a tremendous skill to have. We need as many bilingual and trilingual people as possible. Speakers of Portuguese, Spanish, Chinese, Hindi, Punjabi etc will be a tremendous asset to us in the future. The key is to ensure that their English skills are up to scratch. By doing that we are making an investment that has the potential to reap significant rewards.

"Being able to speak more than one language is a tremendous skill to have"

That's true.. but you know as well as I do what the point is here... or do you think 11% (and rising no doubt) of children not having the language of the country they live in as first language is a good thing?

As long as they speak and write this country's language fluently I see it as a major net gain. The challenge is to make sure that they do. I would like all kids to be able to be bilingual, at least.

malcolmg said:

SouthamObserver said:

malcolmg said:

john_zims said:

@Mick_Pork

Assuming 'Yes' wins and currency union happens,Scotland will have a Governor from a foreign country controlling Scotland's monetary policy & a foreign Chancellor controlling Scotland's fiscal policy.

Where's the independence?

You mean like Germany , France , Italy , Spain , etc etc ad infinitum

To an extent. But lessons will also have been learned from what happened in the Eurozone when a crisis did erupt. These will be reflected in the final agreement.

SO , I was merely pointing out that based on his theory all of those countries would not be independent either, which to any sane person is stupid.

I agree. Not having your own currency inevitably involves a significant ceding of sovereignty. It's silly to pretend otherwise.

@DavidL - I was merely pointing out that if the Tories had been really serious about this they would have put more effort into ensuring that they might win. They didn't, so we can draw the obvious conclusions.

CarlottaVance said:

Mick_Pork said:

CarlottaVance said:

As I said....anything but the topic of the thread....

Difference is you've been spouting Balls and labour's spin for so long now you don't realise how meaningless your assertions are.

Patrick said:

Trouble is the currency issue is a giant hairy gorilla in the corner...

Mick_Pork said:

It's really not. You think both campaigns don't know exactly where the scottish public rate certain issues as a priority they want more information on to decide how to vote? They do. Currency is rated 8th. Only ahead of the monarchy and the BBC as topics.

Date of that research on salience of currency? And are the top issues affected by currency (in the same way that 'immigration' (high salience) is affected by 'EU Membership' (low salience).

November.

Date of this poll.

SNP enjoy huge 19% lead over Labour in ICM poll

SNP 43%
Labour 24%
Conservatives 14%
UKIP 7%
Liberal Democrats 6%

January. I'm afraid your economic guru Ed Balls won't have liked that one at all.

DavidL said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:

I think there is a remarkable lack of real politic about the discussions involving the currency and the LOLR.

London is greedy and ruthless. Ask its competitors in Paris and Frankfurt (if you can find them, I suggest you try Kensington). The idea that everything would simply carry on as before is completely naive. Case after case has shown that trade between countries that separate collapses. This would just be the start.

Would Scotland survive? Of course. But we already have an economy which is overweighted to the public sector, closer to France than the rest of the UK. The loss of such a major industry would be a terrible blow and make the financial constraints that rUK would impose on spending and borrowing as a condition of using the currency extremely hard to bear.

TBF, the Edinburgh fund management industry is quite independent of the London market with a number of significant and very proud institutions - Standard Life, Aberdeen, Baillie Gifford, etc. It's common practice to schlep up to Edinburgh when you are trying to place equity.

Certainly the banks would move south because of the LoLR issue, but I don't think the FM companies necessarily would (possibly SL because of the insurance regulations, but that's outside my area of expertise). They would need to tweak their mandates to allow them to treat London as a "domestic" rather than a "international" market for investment purposes, but that's just an administrative hassle.

p.s. the French are in South Kensington, the Germans in Richmond (with the Swedes) and Chelsea (with the Italians). Kensington is largely Russians, Ukrainians and Americans these days ;-)

At the moment rUK is not competing for those jobs and revenue streams. That would no longer be the situation. They would either move themselves or be bought up and have their funds moved south. It would be inevitable. At the moment they all have accreditation with regulators that (despite the past failures) are recognised as amongst the most sophisticated and reliable in the world backed by the FSCS and other provisions. Their business would suffer greatly if they lost that.

I'll take your word on the geography of our various immigrant investment communities. Where would you suggest the Scots go?

With the English in Fulham?

SouthamObserver said:

malcolmg said:

SouthamObserver said:

malcolmg said:

john_zims said:

@Mick_Pork

Assuming 'Yes' wins and currency union happens,Scotland will have a Governor from a foreign country controlling Scotland's monetary policy & a foreign Chancellor controlling Scotland's fiscal policy.

Where's the independence?

You mean like Germany , France , Italy , Spain , etc etc ad infinitum

To an extent. But lessons will also have been learned from what happened in the Eurozone when a crisis did erupt. These will be reflected in the final agreement.

SO , I was merely pointing out that based on his theory all of those countries would not be independent either, which to any sane person is stupid.

I agree. Not having your own currency inevitably involves a significant ceding of sovereignty. It's silly to pretend otherwise.

Outdated and pointless SO. Britain has no more sovereignty than Germany , in fact much less. The markets push the UK about far more than they ever do Germany , so it is just a myth that UK can cling to. Those Germans coming to UK must be cursing their loss of sovereignty when they can buy 15-20% more due to it.
I certainly always think of our great sovereignty as I get 20% less for my cash in Europe.

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

Mick_Pork said:

CarlottaVance said:

or is it only the SNP view that matters?

So sorry, I didn't realise you were still enjoying being Balls mouthpiece so much.
The story you eagerly keep pushing is "Back the Union to keep the pound, says Ed Balls"
He'll be delighted that scottish tories now hang on his every word and think him a real economic sage.

No, the post you replied to was about Jim Sillars & Colin Fox saying that in the event of a 'Yes' vote the Scottish side in any negotiation must represent the views of the people of Scotland - not just those of the SNP.....and as both are in favour of a separate Scottish currency for a separate Scotland, it raises interesting questions on the topic of the thread which I know you would rather not talk about......

So now its Jim Sillars and Colin Fox that are the views of the Scottish people. Think you will find neither are in office. They can run for election and if the real views of the Scottish people are what they spout then they will be elected and can implement their policy , that is what is called democracy.

So SNP only in negotiations then.....

Charles said:

malcolmg said:

Charles, that would be no bad thing and would mean we could have a real Scottish bank in Scotland rather than the carpetbaggers we have at present. I can only hope you are correct. I also think that the jobs would be replaced by real Scottish banking jobs as we would need that after the UK banks pulled out. Unless you believe that they could still hope to have branches and business in Scotland.

I see no reason to think that RBS, for example, would not remain a major player in the Scottish banking market.

The difference is that instead of 3,000 people in Edinburgh making decisions for RBS, NatWest and Citizens you would have - say - 500 making decisions for the Scottish retail and corporate business of NatWest Group (operating until the RBS brand).

That's a net loss of 2,500 well paying jobs - something no government would like, especially where they are geographically concentrated.

Possibly , but I doubt they would get much business and therefore the new REAL Scottish bank would need plenty of people to manage all the business it attracted. I do not remember many Nat West branches from past years. I think you live in a dream if you think they can move everything out and still keep the business.

DavidL said:

Are we back to Libya again? It is the tories fault because not enough of them voted the right way to defeat us?

The lack of acceptance of responsibility for their own votes in once again telling

The tory rebels can't possibly operate in a vacuum. This didn't happen overnight and the time to draw a line has long, long since passed. I'm 100% certain Dominic Raab will have been told in no uncertain terms just how 'helpful' all this was by the Cameroon leadership. Yet he isn't even a serial offender. Which is the problem. The more tory backbenchers rebel with no sanction against them the more other tory MPs will be tempted to join in and get a boost to their own profile as they do so.

Now that the Cameroons have been very publicly seen to cave in to the rebels there can be only one direction of travel for future rebellions and it certainly isn't going to be less of them.

MikeK said:

SouthamObserver said:

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

isam said:

A one way trend?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10611050/Revealed-The-one-in-nine-schools-where-English-is-not-first-language.html

Being able to speak more than one language is a tremendous skill to have. We need as many bilingual and trilingual people as possible. Speakers of Portuguese, Spanish, Chinese, Hindi, Punjabi etc will be a tremendous asset to us in the future. The key is to ensure that their English skills are up to scratch. By doing that we are making an investment that has the potential to reap significant rewards.

"Being able to speak more than one language is a tremendous skill to have"

That's true.. but you know as well as I do what the point is here... or do you think 11% (and rising no doubt) of children not having the language of the country they live in as first language is a good thing?

As long as they speak and write this country's language fluently I see it as a major net gain. The challenge is to make sure that they do. I would like all kids to be able to be bilingual, at least.

Keep pounding isam. But you won't ever get Southam to admit the main point of your post is correct.

What is the main point? I am clearly missing it.

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

There are 221 Tory peers with voting rights in the Lords. 147 of them voted for the referendum bill; three voted against; 71 did not bother to vote at all. If they had, the legislation would have passed. That's how serious the Tories were and are about this.

I don't think you can draw that conclusion unless you look at the turnout across a number of votes.

The backwoodsmen are notoriously difficult to whip. It would be interesting to see the turnout among the 'working peers' though.

Quite. And if the Tory whips had been whipping like crazy, you can imagine Labour and the LDs would be too.

malcolmg said:

Charles said:

malcolmg said:

Charles, that would be no bad thing and would mean we could have a real Scottish bank in Scotland rather than the carpetbaggers we have at present. I can only hope you are correct. I also think that the jobs would be replaced by real Scottish banking jobs as we would need that after the UK banks pulled out. Unless you believe that they could still hope to have branches and business in Scotland.

I see no reason to think that RBS, for example, would not remain a major player in the Scottish banking market.

The difference is that instead of 3,000 people in Edinburgh making decisions for RBS, NatWest and Citizens you would have - say - 500 making decisions for the Scottish retail and corporate business of NatWest Group (operating until the RBS brand).

That's a net loss of 2,500 well paying jobs - something no government would like, especially where they are geographically concentrated.

Possibly , but I doubt they would get much business and therefore the new REAL Scottish bank would need plenty of people to manage all the business it attracted. I do not remember many Nat West branches from past years. I think you live in a dream if you think they can move everything out and still keep the business.

Sorry malcolm, now you have really jumped the shark.

I really don't expect the vast majority of normal people in Scotland to change from their RBS branches (which will remain in the same location, with the same people and the same branding) just because the head office has moved to London.

I suppose they could move to HBOS (likely to be headquartered in Halifax or London) or Clydesdale (probably headquartered in York or London, but possibly still in Glasgow I suppose).

RobD said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

There are 221 Tory peers with voting rights in the Lords. 147 of them voted for the referendum bill; three voted against; 71 did not bother to vote at all. If they had, the legislation would have passed. That's how serious the Tories were and are about this.

I don't think you can draw that conclusion unless you look at the turnout across a number of votes.

The backwoodsmen are notoriously difficult to whip. It would be interesting to see the turnout among the 'working peers' though.

Quite. And if the Tory whips had been whipping like crazy, you can imagine Labour and the LDs would be too.



Indeed - don't forget the Tories don't have a majority in the Lords.

SouthamObserver said:

MikeK said:

SouthamObserver said:

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

isam said:

A one way trend?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10611050/Revealed-The-one-in-nine-schools-where-English-is-not-first-language.html

Being able to speak more than one language is a tremendous skill to have. We need as many bilingual and trilingual people as possible. Speakers of Portuguese, Spanish, Chinese, Hindi, Punjabi etc will be a tremendous asset to us in the future. The key is to ensure that their English skills are up to scratch. By doing that we are making an investment that has the potential to reap significant rewards.

"Being able to speak more than one language is a tremendous skill to have"

That's true.. but you know as well as I do what the point is here... or do you think 11% (and rising no doubt) of children not having the language of the country they live in as first language is a good thing?

As long as they speak and write this country's language fluently I see it as a major net gain. The challenge is to make sure that they do. I would like all kids to be able to be bilingual, at least.

Keep pounding isam. But you won't ever get Southam to admit the main point of your post is correct.

What is the main point? I am clearly missing it.

Yes I think you are. Have tried to explain in the post below

Charles said:

RobD said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

There are 221 Tory peers with voting rights in the Lords. 147 of them voted for the referendum bill; three voted against; 71 did not bother to vote at all. If they had, the legislation would have passed. That's how serious the Tories were and are about this.

I don't think you can draw that conclusion unless you look at the turnout across a number of votes.

The backwoodsmen are notoriously difficult to whip. It would be interesting to see the turnout among the 'working peers' though.

Quite. And if the Tory whips had been whipping like crazy, you can imagine Labour and the LDs would be too.

Indeed - don't forget the Tories don't have a majority in the Lords.



If they had been serious they would have made an effort. But they weren't, so they didn't.

Charles said:

Indeed - don't forget the Tories don't have a majority in the Lords.

Here's a novel idea. If Cammie can't be certain he can do something then perhaps it might be wiser not to give Cast Iron Guarantees, promises or pledges to the Eurosceptic wing of the tory party that he can? They might be a great deal less angry and tempted to keep rebelling when it turns out to have been empty meaningless posturing yet again.

The whipping operation in the commons was also a complete shambles. I would suggest that no matter how much of a 'free spirit' Cammie may consider his Peers if he's written them off as a lost cause then the fault might not just be theirs alone.

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

Mick_Pork said:

CarlottaVance said:

or is it only the SNP view that matters?

So sorry, I didn't realise you were still enjoying being Balls mouthpiece so much.
The story you eagerly keep pushing is "Back the Union to keep the pound, says Ed Balls"
He'll be delighted that scottish tories now hang on his every word and think him a real economic sage.

No, the post you replied to was about Jim Sillars & Colin Fox saying that in the event of a 'Yes' vote the Scottish side in any negotiation must represent the views of the people of Scotland - not just those of the SNP.....and as both are in favour of a separate Scottish currency for a separate Scotland, it raises interesting questions on the topic of the thread which I know you would rather not talk about......

So now its Jim Sillars and Colin Fox that are the views of the Scottish people. Think you will find neither are in office. They can run for election and if the real views of the Scottish people are what they spout then they will be elected and can implement their policy , that is what is called democracy.

So SNP only in negotiations then.....

No one knows at this point but given how inclusive the SNP are I believe they would not do what labour/Tories would do.
Personally I would only include those organisations that were for YES. I would definitely exclude Tory , Labour and Lib Dems. They have spent last years bad mouthing and denigrating Scotland re how it could not stand on its own so why would you want no hope losers like that in your negotiating team.

SouthamObserver said:

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

isam said:

A one way trend?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10611050/Revealed-The-one-in-nine-schools-where-English-is-not-first-language.html

Being able to speak more than one language is a tremendous skill to have. We need as many bilingual and trilingual people as possible. Speakers of Portuguese, Spanish, Chinese, Hindi, Punjabi etc will be a tremendous asset to us in the future. The key is to ensure that their English skills are up to scratch. By doing that we are making an investment that has the potential to reap significant rewards.

"Being able to speak more than one language is a tremendous skill to have"

That's true.. but you know as well as I do what the point is here... or do you think 11% (and rising no doubt) of children not having the language of the country they live in as first language is a good thing?

As long as they speak and write this country's language fluently I see it as a major net gain. The challenge is to make sure that they do. I would like all kids to be able to be bilingual, at least.

How well do you think the kids from schools where over 90% of the kids don't speak English as 1st language mix with kids that can only speak English, outside of school.

What repercussions will this have for society in general when they grow up?

If they are taught properly, they'll speak in English - just as the kids of immigrants always have done. The repercussions for society in having millions of bilingual and trilingual citizens are very positive in my view.

I hope you are right, but I think its a very naïve view to think that 3rd generation (?) immigrants that don't consider English their native tongue is a positive for society

We discussed earlier in the week the over estimation of number certain groups by society, this 1 in 9 figure in school children without English as a first language could be one of the reasons

Charles said:

malcolmg said:

Charles said:

malcolmg said:

Charles, that would be no bad thing and would mean we could have a real Scottish bank in Scotland rather than the carpetbaggers we have at present. I can only hope you are correct. I also think that the jobs would be replaced by real Scottish banking jobs as we would need that after the UK banks pulled out. Unless you believe that they could still hope to have branches and business in Scotland.

I see no reason to think that RBS, for example, would not remain a major player in the Scottish banking market.

The difference is that instead of 3,000 people in Edinburgh making decisions for RBS, NatWest and Citizens you would have - say - 500 making decisions for the Scottish retail and corporate business of NatWest Group (operating until the RBS brand).

That's a net loss of 2,500 well paying jobs - something no government would like, especially where they are geographically concentrated.

Possibly , but I doubt they would get much business and therefore the new REAL Scottish bank would need plenty of people to manage all the business it attracted. I do not remember many Nat West branches from past years. I think you live in a dream if you think they can move everything out and still keep the business.

Sorry malcolm, now you have really jumped the shark.

I really don't expect the vast majority of normal people in Scotland to change from their RBS branches (which will remain in the same location, with the same people and the same branding) just because the head office has moved to London.

I suppose they could move to HBOS (likely to be headquartered in Halifax or London) or Clydesdale (probably headquartered in York or London, but possibly still in Glasgow I suppose).

Charles, we will see , I hope for some real Scottish banks in the future.

Charles said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

I think there is a remarkable lack of real politic about the discussions involving the currency and the LOLR.

London is greedy and ruthless. Ask its competitors in Paris and Frankfurt (if you can find them, I suggest you try Kensington). The idea that everything would simply carry on as before is completely naive. Case after case has shown that trade between countries that separate collapses. This would just be the start.

Would Scotland survive? Of course. But we already have an economy which is overweighted to the public sector, closer to France than the rest of the UK. The loss of such a major industry would be a terrible blow and make the financial constraints that rUK would impose on spending and borrowing as a condition of using the currency extremely hard to bear.

David, quoting bollocks again, it has been well shown that we have little or no more public sector than England. We will need financial institutions in Scotland when independent an dif the English ones move out it will be a good opportunity for new Scottish companies, so as per devolution going to impoverish us , the Torie shave the same old mantra on independence. Do you never question why we have more Pandas than Tory MP's.

Malcolm, that is simply not true. Here are the stats from the Scottish government for Q3 of 2013: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Labour-Market/TrendPublicSectorEmp

It says:

"There were 2,549,000 people employed in Scotland in Q3 2013, an increase of 74,600 (3.0%) over the year. In Q3 2013 public sector employment accounted for 22.7% of total employment, down from 23.5% in the previous year and the lowest proportion seen since the series began in 1999."

In the UK as a whole there are now just over 30m employed with just over 5m working in the public sector, so approximately 17%. We are going in the right direction but there is a long way to go and we are chasing a moving target.

David, i will accept your numbers but last data I saw did not have it as big a difference as that. I really doubt the difference is as big as that. If it was as big a difference why would we not have better public service given they would be awash with people.

If I recall, there are some pretty big public sector organisations (HMRC?) based in Scotland but servicing the whole of the UK. So that would probably explain some of the difference - in the same way that I assume Swansea (DVLA) has a high percentage of public sector employees than Bristol.

Charles, Given the preponderance of public sector jobs located in London I doubt that could explain it. I do not trust those figures. Much more likely to be selective counting of what is public sector.

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

I think there is a remarkable lack of real politic about the discussions involving the currency and the LOLR.

London is greedy and ruthless. Ask its competitors in Paris and Frankfurt (if you can find them, I suggest you try Kensington). The idea that everything would simply carry on as before is completely naive. Case after case has shown that trade between countries that separate collapses. This would just be the start.

Would Scotland survive? Of course. But we already have an economy which is overweighted to the public sector, closer to France than the rest of the UK. The loss of such a major industry would be a terrible blow and make the financial constraints that rUK would impose on spending and borrowing as a condition of using the currency extremely hard to bear.

David, quoting bollocks again, it has been well shown that we have little or no more public sector than England. We will need financial institutions in Scotland when independent an dif the English ones move out it will be a good opportunity for new Scottish companies, so as per devolution going to impoverish us , the Torie shave the same old mantra on independence. Do you never question why we have more Pandas than Tory MP's.

Malcolm, that is simply not true. Here are the stats from the Scottish government for Q3 of 2013: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Labour-Market/TrendPublicSectorEmp

It says:

"There were 2,549,000 people employed in Scotland in Q3 2013, an increase of 74,600 (3.0%) over the year. In Q3 2013 public sector employment accounted for 22.7% of total employment, down from 23.5% in the previous year and the lowest proportion seen since the series began in 1999."

In the UK as a whole there are now just over 30m employed with just over 5m working in the public sector, so approximately 17%. We are going in the right direction but there is a long way to go and we are chasing a moving target.

Are those stats comparable? Different sources, different functions. Not saying you are wrong per se but it is perhaps comparing apples with oranges or with apple-and-orange salad. For instance, a lot of privatization in EWNI means that there are companies providing a public sector service and charging the government, health boards, public, etc. as a private firm. Water is one obvious difference, elements of the NHS another. Public still pays one way or another.

Generic comment on some of the solutions in the AE market.

Watch out for 'packaged' solutions where 'many hands' are involved as they seem to have chunky initial fees and/or ongoing monthly per member fees on top to be paid by the employer.

That may become the norm as the capacity crunch hits the market but if an employer can get terms from 'big insurer' then this is likely to be a great solution currently - if you can get terms!

I may be wrong but I wonder if there will become a risk of solutions such as SimplyEnrol or Lighthouse (I'm just speculating, I don't know them really) that their advisers become 'channels' of distributing their AE solutions to employers.

isam said:

malcolmg said:

JonnyJimmy said:

malcolmg said:

JonnyJimmy said:

malcolmg said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Can anyone trumpeting the Ladbrokes odds on currency union post a link to the actual bet, not to a report of the press release? It doesn't seem to exist on their website...

I would imagine you could phone them and place a bet. I doubt they will be expecting many bets on it.

ion.

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/92105/ladbrokes_scotland_1_100_to_enter_currency_union_50_1_not_to.html

That's not a link to the bet, or to anything at Ladbrokes. It is, as I'm sure you noticed, the press release as quoted by politicshome. The quote I gave earlier was what someone had copied from the Ladbrokes website, giving the actual terms of the bet; ie will Scotland still be using GBP on 1/1/16 - which does not imply a currency union. That bet is no longer on their website. I presume because they realised the terms were stupid.

Have you got anything better than a link to politicshome?

I am not your lackey , phone Ladbrokes.

Bookmakers announce prices in Press Releases, or on tv to generate publicity without any expectation of taking a bet on it. Often these markets are not on the website precisely so they cant take bets

Its a con to get people talking about the firm, and to get people on the website... and it looks like its worked!!

Yes it certainly did.

Scott_P said:

malcolmg said:

methinks it would be better to have Scottish Government do the supervising, less likely to have another crash that way.

It is this level of blind devotion amongst Eck's faithfull that cheers me up every day.

"Alex Salmond personally offered Sir Fred Goodwin the support of the Scottish Government for the disastrous takeover that almost ruined the Royal Bank of Scotland."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/revealed-salmond-s-support-for-goodwin-over-disastrous-rbs-deal-1.1046662

You can always depend on Scott to post something puerile and stupid and a lie.

JonnyJimmy said:

malcolmg said:

Pulpstar said:

malcolmg said:

JonnyJimmy said:

malcolmg said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Can anyone trumpeting the Ladbrokes odds on currency union post a link to the actual bet, not to a report of the press release? It doesn't seem to exist on their website...

I would imagine you could phone them and place a bet. I doubt they will be expecting many bets on it.

From what I can see on google it was on their website and the terms were different from what you're quoting; the 1/100 was on Scotland using GBP on 1/1/16, NOT on there being a currency union.

From the horses mouth so to speak

Press Release
Press Releases

Wednesday 29th January 2014 | 16:26
Ladbrokes: Scotland 1/100 to enter currency union - 50/1 not to

Ladbrokes press release

Scotland certs for currency union



Ladbrokes latest betting

Scotland to form a currency union with the United Kingdom before the 31st of December 2015

Yes 1/100

No 50/1

Bets void if referendum outcome is 'no' to independence

Referendum outcome

Yes 7/2

No 1/5

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/92105/ladbrokes_scotland_1_100_to_enter_currency_union_50_1_not_to.html

That bet is completely ridiculous even if you think the British Pound will not be used in the future.

On both sides - as has been pointed out here before.

Pulpstar , I was not promoting betting on it, merely pointing it out. JJ could not find it and so I was merely being helpful.

You, redcliffe and McPiglet have all quoted the quote of the press release to "prove" that PBTories don't know what they're talking about wrt the possibility of no currency union for Scotland. I've quoted a quote of the bet as it appeared on the Ladbrokes website, where it no longer appears as they framed a stupid bet. Your argument was flawed; get over it.

Your first point , it needs no press release to prove that PBTories do not know what they are talking about re currency union.
Your second point is just bollocks , who said it was a great bet , I only said Ladbrokes had put up a bet, I showed you the evidence and now you are in a strop because you cannot get a bet on.
Get real.

Gerry ‏@archangelolill 55m

The Tory #immigration rebels have highlighted that David Cameron is undermined by both insubordination and mutiny. http://gu.com/p/3mbk9/tw

Pete ‏@Petea1uk

Cameron today has proved without doubt he is weakest PM in memory. Makes John Major look like Arnold Schwarzenegger in under pants!


Gaz W ‏@Americanist9

Cameron doing a great impression of John Major in failing to exercise any control over backbenchers #Leadership

CarlottaVance said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Labour's politicisation of Quangos faces purge by coalition would be another spin?

Indeed!

http://www.conservativehome.com/leftwatch/2014/02/presumably-baroness-morgan-didnt-complain-when-77-per-cent-of-public-appointments-were-labour-affiliated.html

Quoted from the policy exchange report.

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/reforming public appointments.pdf

"Apart from all these provisos, the key question is whether Labour’s clear lead in the number of supporters obtaining appointments results from a bias in the appointments system or whether it reflects a lead in the numbers of supporters making applications. According to research by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, it is the latter. The proportion of appointees to applicants is similar for Labour and for the Conservatives. This suggests a considerable grassroots Conservative deficit."

Monty said:

I shall briefly de-lurk to point out that the cabbages thing is a myth and has been around since before the EU in one form or another. See http://www.snopes.com/language/document/cabbage.asp

A simple Google check would have told you.

Interesting. Surely it isn't necessary to play with the truth, here by person or persons unknown, to make a valid point. I wonder whether this one might not have been concocted as an anti-Brussels ploy. In any case it's a broader issue. I feel that our freedoms, at worst, and time, at least worst, is being wasted by self-justifying bean counters.

There's no doubt that's Carney's speech has been a body blow to the nationalist cause. It's hard to picture now what Scotland would look like after 'independence' - somewhere between a semi-autonomous sterling district and an English dependency? Whatever the nuances of the eventual outcome it would represent a humiliation for the people of that great and historic land. Neither Salmond nor any other proud Scot should live with himself, having brought about the annihilation of a nation's soul.

nigel4england said:

Ringa Bay has a better chance than the 25/1 offered on Betfair in the 2-40 at Ffos Las, I've bought for 6 on the spreads as they pay 10 for 4th place.

I'm opposing you with Bob Ford in that one

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

I think there is a remarkable lack of real politic about the discussions involving the currency and the LOLR.

MP's.

Malcolm, that is simply not true. Here are the stats from the Scottish government for Q3 of 2013: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Labour-Market/TrendPublicSectorEmp

It says:

"There were 2,549,000 people employed in Scotland in Q3 2013, an increase of 74,600 (3.0%) over the year. In Q3 2013 public sector employment accounted for 22.7% of total employment, down from 23.5% in the previous year and the lowest proportion seen since the series began in 1999."

In the UK as a whole there are now just over 30m employed with just over 5m working in the public sector, so approximately 17%. We are going in the right direction but there is a long way to go and we are chasing a moving target.

David, i will accept your numbers but last data I saw did not have it as big a difference as that. I really doubt the difference is as big as that. If it was as big a difference why would we not have better public service given they would be awash with people.

Well some of it is because of regional policy. So for example we have whatever the Child Support Agency was rebranded as in Falkirk dealing not only with Scotland but also the north of England. We have a significant number of HMRC jobs here in Dundee. We have 500 people working for the department of International Development in East Kilbride. etc, etc. There are interesting issues as to how many of these jobs will remain or be replaced with Scottish administration currently done elsewhere.

Also, from my experience the NHS in Scotland is somewhat better staffed than certainly its London equivalent. Because of the reluctance to reform anything controversial north of the border there are far too many managers but even on the wards things do seem a little better.

There may also be classification issues, particularly in relation to colleges. My wife works at Dundee and Angus College (as it now is) and their status is now being classified as in the public sector under their new funding arrangements whilst previously they were classified as not public sector (despite of course being entirely paid for from the public purse).

What we cannot afford to do is lose 10s of thousands of well paid private sector jobs which is what would happen if we lost our financial services industry, something I think would be inevitable if we went independent.

Mick_Pork said:

DavidL said:

Are we back to Libya again? It is the tories fault because not enough of them voted the right way to defeat us?

The lack of acceptance of responsibility for their own votes in once again telling

The tory rebels can't possibly operate in a vacuum. This didn't happen overnight and the time to draw a line has long, long since passed. I'm 100% certain Dominic Raab will have been told in no uncertain terms just how 'helpful' all this was by the Cameroon leadership. Yet he isn't even a serial offender. Which is the problem. The more tory backbenchers rebel with no sanction against them the more other tory MPs will be tempted to join in and get a boost to their own profile as they do so.

Now that the Cameroons have been very publicly seen to cave in to the rebels there can be only one direction of travel for future rebellions and it certainly isn't going to be less of them.

For some reason you seem to have cut the bit where I agreed with you on that. The indiscipline and lack of focus on the main objectives on the tory back benches is indeed a major problem for Cameron and the tories in general. It seriously increases the prospects of some of those MPs losing their jobs. It is frankly irrational or just plain stupid.

DavidL said:

The indiscipline and lack of focus on the main objectives on the tory back benches is indeed a major problem for Cameron and the tories in general. It seriously increases the prospects of some of those MPs losing their jobs. It is frankly irrational or just plain stupid.

Absolutely! In fact it's got to stage now where no one (other than perhaps the rebels themselves) thinks their antics are in any way adult. Tory MPs are looking like grisly Westminster clubbers - concerned only with gossips, plots and long lunches. I've felt this way since 1997 when the Tory rump just couldn't be bothered and let Blair and Brown wreck the nation with impunity - a disgraceful dereliction of duty.

nigel4england said:

malcolmg said:

Pulpstar said:

nigel4england said:

Ringa Bay has a better chance than the 25/1 offered on Betfair in the 2-40 at Ffos Las, I've bought for 6 on the spreads as they pay 10 for 4th place.

I'm opposing you with Bob Ford in that one

Think Smoking Aces is winner, I just got the 14:05 winner , just made it home and no more.

Think Ringa Bay is value and 4th would give me profit, all a bit difficult given the conditions today

Yes, looking at last race conditions are real tough , Smoking Aces with only 10st 1lb must get a boost.
Saphir Du Rheu did well getting home with the weight it was carrying.

nigel4england said:

malcolmg said:

Pulpstar said:

nigel4england said:

Ringa Bay has a better chance than the 25/1 offered on Betfair in the 2-40 at Ffos Las, I've bought for 6 on the spreads as they pay 10 for 4th place.

I'm opposing you with Bob Ford in that one

Think Smoking Aces is winner, I just got the 14:05 winner , just made it home and no more.

Think Ringa Bay is value and 4th would give me profit, all a bit difficult given the conditions today

Ringa bay dropped to last , hopefully just having a rest

nigel4england said:

nigel4england said:

malcolmg said:

Pulpstar said:

nigel4england said:

Ringa Bay has a better chance than the 25/1 offered on Betfair in the 2-40 at Ffos Las, I've bought for 6 on the spreads as they pay 10 for 4th place.

P

I'm opposing you with Bob Ford in that one

Think Smoking Aces is winner, I just got the 14:05 winner , just made it home and no more.

Think Ringa Bay is value and 4th would give me profit, all a bit difficult given the conditions today

The best laid plans....

Mine is struggling now

malcolmg said:

malcolmg said:

nigel4england said:

nigel4england said:

malcolmg said:

Pulpstar said:

nigel4england said:

Ringa Bay has a better chance than the 25/1 offered on Betfair in the 2-40 at Ffos Las, I've bought for 6 on the spreads as they pay 10 for 4th place.

P

I'm opposing you with Bob Ford in that one

Think Smoking Aces is winner, I just got the 14:05 winner , just made it home and no more.

Think Ringa Bay is value and 4th would give me profit, all a bit difficult given the conditions today

The best laid plans....

Mine is struggling now

managed to get back and claim 3rd so a small profit.

I cannot believe it , I did not tick the EW box , what a dummy