Is Andrew Rawnsley covering the elections on May 2nd in the Manchester area ?
Are there any elections in Manchester?
You fell for it !
Mr Rawnsley, the Blairite reporter-in-chief wrote in today's Observer that UKIP is putting up lots of candidates in the Manchester area to usurp the Tories as the anti Labour party.
Is Andrew Rawnsley covering the elections on May 2nd in the Manchester area ?
Are there any elections in Manchester?
You fell for it !
Mr Rawnsley, the Blairite reporter-in-chief wrote in today's Observer that UKIP is putting up lots of candidates in the Manchester area to usurp the Tories as the anti Labour party.
Clearly, the wine got to him.
Well I knew there weren't any elections in my part of Manchester, that they are next year.
Bermondsey & Old Southwark: 8th June 2013 Enfield North: 23rd June 2013 Hornsey & Wood Green: 23rd June 2013 Hendon: 7th July 2013
Lewisham Deptford is on May 18 Bristol South: June 8 Manchester Withington: 8th June too
In Somerset NE they are already doing the supporting nominations process...so I would expect them to finish in early June too. Tal Michael wrote he has been shortlisted in Arfon...so I guess the hustings may be in May there if they already have a shortlist.
Re Manchester and Andrew Rawnsley, that's an astonishing blunder.
Re urban areas generally, UKIP will struggle in places that are very class-conscious (eg Liverpool) or with big ethnic minority and left-leaning middle classes (eg Manchester)
... and that is why when anyone uses a link to back up their point, said link should be treated with considerable circumspection, most especially prolific posters on this site. A link is not proof.
"Ed Miliband last night faced an angry backlash from Labour MPs after it emerged he held a secret meeting with George Galloway, who was thrown out of the party ten years ago. The Labour leader invited Respect MP Mr Galloway to his Commons office, where they had a ‘cordial and friendly conversation’ for nearly an hour. It has sparked rumours that Mr Miliband is considering allowing Mr Galloway to rejoin the party.
Bermondsey & Old Southwark: 8th June 2013 Enfield North: 23rd June 2013 Hornsey & Wood Green: 23rd June 2013 Hendon: 7th July 2013
Lewisham Deptford is on May 18 Bristol South: June 8 Manchester Withington: 8th June too
In Somerset NE they are already doing the supporting nominations process...so I would expect them to finish in early June too. Tal Michael wrote he has been shortlisted in Arfon...so I guess the hustings may be in May there if they already have a shortlist.
Areas with elections in May (i.e. not London) are all holding off selections till afterwards. There will be a riush in June/July and lots more in September.
"It has sparked rumours that Mr Miliband is considering allowing Mr Galloway to rejoin the party."
Bringing Galloway back into the fold would be a tactical masterstroke for Miliband, which is a) why the Mail are hopping mad about it, and b) why it won't happen.
Lincolnshire, Dorset, Essex and Gloucestershire are the CC which will count everything overnight.
The rest will finish on Friday...but it's not straightforward as some Districts may count overnight and others within the same County on Friday. So we will likely get more results on the night that just these 4.
Northamptonshire plans to declare final results at 19:00 on Friday.
"It has sparked rumours that Mr Miliband is considering allowing Mr Galloway to rejoin the party."
Bringing Galloway back into the fold would be a tactical masterstroke for Miliband, which is a) why the Mail are hopping mad about it, and b) why it won't happen.
mastertroke in the sense it would increase the number of lazy Scottish Labour MPs around?
I hope you've noticed the collective shrug of shoulders every time you do. Even if it was true, a choice between getting inhuman weapons of mass destruction off our soil and holding on to a particular design of banknote is a bit of a no-brainer by any standards.
And of course, no-one wants "separation" anyway. Independence is a different matter, though.
Interesting couple of days so far canvassing seats with extremely dug-in LibDems defending from Labour challenges with lots of their votes coming from people who vote Labour at General Elections. They're losing some on national grounds, but certainly not all: people generally like them personally and are quite torn. Not really enough data to draw conclusions yet.
"mastertroke in the sense it would increase the number of lazy Scottish Labour MPs around?"
The serious answer to that question is that it would neutralise the Respect threat, with Galloway reverting to being the fringe figure he always was when part of Labour.
He's unquestionably one of the best orators of his generation, though.
"Scottish independence: Alex Salmond given currency ultimatum Scotland may have to join euro or create new currency if first minister fails to accept Treasury's terms for joining sterling."
Kate Higgins points out that Mrs Thatcher was a force for unity in Scotland, not for division -
"Watching the interminable coverage of Thatcher’s death was absorbing. It was particularly fascinating to see how her acolytes and apologists worked furiously to cement her reputation in the public consciousness. The same phrases were used over and over again to describe the woman and her legacy.The most over-used was that she was a divisive character, that she fomented division in politics and society and across the UK. Loathed and loved in equal measure.
But they were wrong. Thatcher didn’t divide Scotland, she united us.
At every level and in every way, the Scots rejected her policies and her attempts to re-shape our beliefs. In many ways, her legacy lives on. And it will have done our young people no harm – many of whom have found their elders’ vehemence at the mere mention of her name bewildering and bemusing – to have had political history played out for them all over the media."
@carlotta Please provide any link that you can think of that is absolute proof of anything (relative to a politcal argument). It may be persuasive but its not and never is absolute proof.
In Staffordshire, Tamworth usually counts overnight (in fact is often one of the first to declare) but I expect places like Staffordshire Moorlands to count on the Friday morning/afternoon.
They should learn to defeat the Respect threat at the ballot box and on the doorstep....possibly in a legal way. IMO the threat is confined to a couple of seats at best considering Galloway can't stand everywhere (and that in Bethnal Green it became a Rahman's threat and that Salma left in Birmingham). In the great scheme of things it is less important as it would become crucial if Labour is 2 seats short of an overall majority (but in this case they are fuc*ed anyway as lasting 5 years in that situation is almost impossible). Maybe if Con and Lab have the same number of seats and the LibDems should decide which coalition to join.
The Tory vote in Scotland in October 1974, before Thatcher took over, was 24.7%. In 1992, after she'd gone, it was 25.7%. In her last election as PM in 1987 it was 24.0%. So not much change in the Tory vote over that period.
He's unquestionably one of the best orators of his generation, though.
Oration aside you can maybe have a go at him for commons appearances and laziness if you don't take into account the fact that he isn't taking a party whip and is bound to be a more constituency orientated MP like Caroline Lucas.
But lazy when it comes to campaigning? Not even close. The Bradford West by-election is still by far the biggest upset and most astute bit of guerrilla campaigning seen for years. Little Ed wishes he could mobilise voters in every seat with the efficiency Galloway did. For all the current Kipper infatuation Farage still couldn't leverage his protest votes into a seat win while Galloway could.
The Tory vote in Scotland in October 1974, before Thatcher took over, was 24.7%. In 1992, after she'd gone, it was 25.7%. In her last election as PM in 1987 it was 24.0%. So not much change in the Tory vote over that period.
The drop came in 92 and even more so in 97 in numbers of Scottish seats. They still poll in the mid teens, and with SLAB and the SNP both vying for left wing votes, Scottish Tories have a fairly clear gap in the political map on the right wing.
But they were wrong. Thatcher didn’t divide Scotland, she united us.
How true that is. All those vicious, divisive strikes of the late seventies (I seem to remember one particularly nasty lorry drivers' strike which started in Grangemouth, and which led to people being unable to heat their homes), with different groups of workers at each others throats, were a distant memory by the end of Mrs Thatcher's premiership.
Luckily Scotland, like everywhere else in the world, now embraces Thatcher's flagship policies. Scotland won't be seeing the return of the closed shop or secondary picketing, or the propping up of duff industries with taxpayers' money, thank goodness.
He's unquestionably one of the best orators of his generation, though.
Oration aside you can maybe have a go at him for commons appearances and laziness if you don't take into account the fact that he isn't taking a party whip and is bound to be a more constituency orientated MP like Caroline Lucas.
But lazy when it comes to campaigning? Not even close. The Bradford West by-election is still by far the biggest upset and most astute bit of guerrilla campaigning seen for years. Little Ed wishes he could mobilise voters in every seat with the efficiency Galloway did. For all the current Kipper infatuation Farage still couldn't leverage his protest votes into a seat win while Galloway could.
Maybe you missed the word Labour in my line. And also Scottish. It changes the whole implication of it.
I like Sandra White. I don't want Galloway to come back and campaign her out of Kelvin in guerrilla style.
Andy, that's false reasoning. October 1974 was a unique election in Scotland because it was the SNP's high watermark. Both Labour and Tories suffered - Labour fell to the same level of support that Michael Foot got in 1983. But crucially, Labour recovered to the same extent as the Tories in 1979, in spite of the fact that there was a huge swing against Labour everywhere else. That was the first sign of the unpopularity of Thatcherism in Scotland. But for the Tories to fall to 24% in 1987 at a time when the SNP had only 17% of the vote was an unmitigated disaster.
Thatcherism was a catastrophe for the Scottish Tories, and the damage is probably irreparable.
The Tory vote in Scotland in October 1974, before Thatcher took over, was 24.7%. In 1992, after she'd gone, it was 25.7%. In her last election as PM in 1987 it was 24.0%. So not much change in the Tory vote over that period.
But she intensified anti-Tory tactical voting while she was leader, hence the seat losses the Scottish Tories managed in the 1983 and 1987 elections.
Wait for any bets on Bradford before you know what the NEC do with AWS. They delayed the decision for Bradford East...I guess they want to dump the AWS there. But you never know with them.
Naturally, it's big from the raison d'etre betting angle. But UKIP would have to do disasterously given their national polling for the overal narrative in the press to be in their favour: the difference between "some gains" and "many gains" isn't going to be big in terms of how it is reported, in my opinion.
I like Sandra White. I don't want Galloway to come back and campaign her out of Kelvin in guerrilla style.
I'm not asking you to like him Andrea but there are far better critiques of him than lazy.
Seriously (because the first version of the comment was a bit different...if you have read it before my editing), I am open to be convinced. Some Labourites painted me a different picture. But I aknowledge that they may just hate him. Or maybe he was already disaffected with them in the last few years (because I think that's the period they were talking about) and so he didn't put much energy.
You have 7 days. The central question is "was he an effective MP for Glasgow? Was he more effective than the other Glasgow Labour MPs? Was he different from the SLAB culture of late 90s/early 00s to take voters for granted with un-campaigning CLPs (as we discovered Glasgow East CLP didn't keep canvassing records...)?"
It can actually be a nice dissertation work!
(I hope it doesn't sound as a fight...I have Mediterranean blood, I get militant too soon...:-)
'Agreeing to a currency union would "hand to what would become a foreign government key decisions over the Scottish economy. This is one of the big contradictions in their whole economic approach [...] Calling for 'full fiscal freedom' with one breath, but calling for a 'full fiscal pact' with the next. It simply doesn't add up," they said.'
I'm surprised to find myself in full agreement with you, John. The latest of the fatuous daily scare stories about independence is indeed "pure comedy".
I'm not about to defend every aspect of his record as an MP Andrea but you pretty much said it yourself when you alluded to the ire he raises in other scottish labour MPs.
For one thing that hatred is very real and can be traced to various ongoing feuds (they never stop and there are no shortage of them in scottish labour) in which he was never going to be an innocent bystander. Then you add in the internecine politics of Glasgow itself and it's hardly a surprise he will always raise hackles.
As for what an effective MP is, depends who you ask. If you ask the whips you know what the answer will be. If you ask the constituents I suspect it will always be mixed and tied in with how much they agree with his politics. If you asked Galloway I presume he would point to himself as being a campaigning MP raising the profile of issues he wants highlighted. If you ask other MPs many of them will most likely say he's a media whore not interested in the grind of surgery work and being commons lobby fodder.
The culture of taking voters for granted was always going to continue just as long as there was no threat to it. Now there is. Galloway likely used that culture and the safety it afforded to raise his own own profile while others just took it as a nice 'bonus' or perk of the job.
Does it make him a better MP than the others? I look at the state of Glasgow council and conclude anyone with power who could have done something to change that is implicated. So he doesn't get off the hook in my book. Nor do any of the others.
I'm surprised to find myself in full agreement with you, John. The latest of the fatuous daily scare stories about independence is indeed "pure comedy".
Surely AAA comedy is more appropriate for the incompetent Osbrowne?
O/T My wife is not pleased to find that some of the congregation at MT's funeral are selling their copies of the Order of Service on eBay. Still, she said, not all of those invited were respectable and upstanding people - some of them were journalists
The Tories have squandered one of their safest seats in Surrey by mucking up the nomination papers. It means UKIP are the only party fielding a full slate of candidates in the county, as Nigel Farage tweeted a few days ago. The division in question is Shalford, near Guildford:
I like Sandra White. I don't want Galloway to come back and campaign her out of Kelvin in guerrilla style.
I'm not asking you to like him Andrea but there are far better critiques of him than lazy.
Seriously (because the first version of the comment was a bit different...if you have read it before my editing), I am open to be convinced. Some Labourites painted me a different picture. But I aknowledge that they may just hate him. Or maybe he was already disaffected with them in the last few years (because I think that's the period they were talking about) and so he didn't put much energy.
You have 7 days. The central question is "was he an effective MP for Glasgow? Was he more effective than the other Glasgow Labour MPs? Was he different from the SLAB culture of late 90s/early 00s to take voters for granted with un-campaigning CLPs (as we discovered Glasgow East CLP didn't keep canvassing records...)?"
It can actually be a nice dissertation work!
(I hope it doesn't sound as a fight...I have Mediterranean blood, I get militant too soon...:-)
I don't know anything about his time in Glasgow, but in London he was said to be spectacularly uninterested in constituents' cases. As the chair of the fibromyalgia group I had a pathetic (not angry, just bemused) letter from one of them: she'd written to him to ask where she should get advice on disability benefits, and received the reply "Dear Ms X, Thank you for your letter. I appreciate it. Yours sincerely, George".
But others had similar reputations - a Tory noted for his vigorous use of Parliamentary procedure to disrupt Government business was said to chuck all personal requests in the bin, with the comment that he wasn't elected to deal with such stuff.
There's a respectable case for not wanting to bother with casework (I know Mike agrees), but MPs wishing to take this line should at least reply to say so.
The IMF has just published a pdf of George Osborne's statement to the IMF at its recent meeting in Washington.
Those wishing to understand the nature of the relationship with between the UK and the IMF should read the statement as much for its tone as its content.
Osborne is broadly supportive of the IMF and, in particular, many of its recently agreed reforms, new competences and projects. He is however frustrated by lack of progress in realising the internal IMF reforms and with delays by many member states in implementing their own commitments to the IMF.
His comments on Japan and the US are interesting and lay bare the divisions which exist between the fiscal consolidators and stimulus advocates:
The US took important action to avoid the fiscal cliff in 2012. In Japan, the authorities have just implemented a bold monetary and fiscal stimulus Package to fight deflation, but this has meant the postponement of much needed fiscal adjustment and structural reforms. In both countries, credible medium-term consolidation plans still need to be put in place and I look forward to seeing progress on this in 2013.
Osborne also calls for a more co-ordinated global approach to trade and exchange rate policies, with his remarks mainly addressed to the creditor nations:
If large deficit countries are going to successfully address their domestic imbalances, then large surplus economies (both advanced and emerging markets) will need to help facilitate the process. As national saving and deleveraging increases in the former, the latter will need to shift from external to domestic sources of growth. Policy prescriptions differ depending on national circumstances, but the basic elements are now well-known. As the Managing Director’s Global Policy Agenda sets out, the full range of macroeconomic and structural reforms are needed, including greater exchange rate flexibility and financial reform. I would also emphasise the importance of our commitment to free trade and investment, and our pledge to avoid all forms of protectionism. I hope to see progress on a more cooperative approach in 2013 - this will be key to ensuring a stronger recovery for us all.
On the UK economy and on progress with his fiscal consolidation plans Osborne is cautiously optimistic on outcomes and confident in his policies:
In the UK there are still very large fiscal challenges. The deficit is forecast to be the highest in Europe in 2013 and gross debt is set to reach 100 percent of GDP in the coming years. The UK also has a large and systemically important financial sector, which the IMF described as a “global public good” in the 2011 UK Spillover Report. A strong and credible consolidation plan is therefore essential for global, as well as domestic, financial stability. I will continue to implement my medium-term fiscal consolidation plan, using the flexibility in the fiscal framework to deliver gradual and sustained adjustment, targeting the structural balance and allowing the automatic stabilisers to operate fully. This plan is projected to deliver a structural adjustment of 0.9 percent of GDP on average over the next three years. The IMF judge that, on average, 1 percent of GDP structural adjustment per year remains broadly appropriate for advanced economies.
The importance of banking reform is also highlighted:
Most importantly, measures are needed to address balance sheet weakness. The UK has been a strong advocate of actions to strengthen the resilience of the banking sector and robust stress testing. Recent policy recommendations from the UK’s Financial Policy Committee to strengthen capital buffers, along with the Funding for Lending Scheme, should improve the supply of credit in the UK. Similar actions are needed elsewhere, particularly in the euro area. ...
As the home of some of the world's biggest banks and the host to many more in one of the world’s largest systemic financial centres, the UK is continuing to lead from the front in this area. The Banking Reform Bill is introducing structural reforms to improve the safety of banks, protect taxpayers and ensure a more stable UK financial sector.
These are the words of a confident and committed Chancellor leading global efforts to effect economic recovery.
What a pity the UK media spent its time at the IMF conference dabbling in water-cooler gossip and spinning misleading, inaccurate and irrelevant tales of Osborne being "warned by the IMF to change his plans".
If anyone was doing the warning in Washington it was George himself.
Anyone doubting my words can download the (4 page) text of the speech from the following link:
'In its first formal intervention on the currency debate, the Treasury will issue a report on Tuesday signalling that it would want to see significant restraints on Scottish economic policies before it agreed to a new currency union with an independent Scotland. If either side failed to agree on that deal, the Treasury will state, Scotland would need alternatives to a formal sterling pact. It could still use sterling without a currency union, leaving it with no influence on Bank of England policy, set up a new currency or join the euro.'
"No agreement to Treasury terms no Sterling pact."
How about this - "No flexibility on Treasury terms = no more British nuclear deterrent." Are you impressed? No. Is there any difference between the two statements? No.
"Anti-independence campaigners say independence might not work" is not a story, no matter how excited you get by it.
"No agreement to Treasury terms no Sterling pact."
How about this - "No flexibility on Treasury terms = no more British nuclear deterrent." Are you impressed? No. Is there any difference between the two statements? No.
"Anti-independence campaigners say independence might not work" is not a story, no matter how excited you get by it.
James, the Treasury's statement is entirely consistent with its position on the Euro. Namely that a shared currency can only operate successfully if there is a co-ordinated and centrally controlled fiscal and monetary policy as well as a banking union. This is why Osborne is supporting the EU, ECB [and Germany's] movements towards implementing these requirements in the Eurozone.
The Treasury is hardly likely to support a currency union with an independent Scotland on terms which broadly differ from those it is recommending be implemented for the Euro.
In that respect, the policy quoted is merely a statement of the obvious and not a negotiating tactic.
"Anti-independence campaigners say independence might not work" is not a story, no matter how excited you get by it.
To be fair this is the incompetent Osbrowne we are talking about and the respect he garners from voters in scotland is legendary. The fop who couldn't tax a pasty without making a hilarious farce of it issuing threats. AAA comedy indeed.
"No agreement to Treasury terms no Sterling pact."
seems one effect of this is it shows how a process of negotiation could/would work. And in the end, the Scots would be able to choose whichever currency union (or none) would be best for the Scottish economy.
"The Treasury is hardly likely to support a currency union with an independent Scotland on terms which broadly differ from those it is recommending be implemented for the Euro."
Are you suggesting that the UK government are non-hypocrites? It's a novel view, Avery, but a bit radical for my taste.
"Anti-independence campaigners say independence might not work" is not a story, no matter how excited you get by it.
To be fair this is the incompetent Osbrowne we are talking about and the respect he garners from voters in scotland is legendary. The fop who couldn't tax a pasty without making a hilarious farce of it issuing threats. AAA comedy indeed.
"The Treasury is hardly likely to support a currency union with an independent Scotland on terms which broadly differ from those it is recommending be implemented for the Euro."
Are you suggesting that the UK government are non-hypocrites? It's a novel view, Avery, but a bit radical for my taste.
I am not saying that the UK and Scotland will have to agree "convergence terms" which are identical to those stipulated in the Maastricht Treaty, but agreements will need to be made on the same metrics of economic policy.
In this respect it is probable that the Treasury's terms would be more favourable to an independent Scotland than the equivalent policies and controls being implemented in the Eurozone.
I'm not sure I see anything hypocritical here. There is certainly no suggestion of there being "one set of rules for England" and "another set of more stringent rules for Scotland".
"No agreement to Treasury terms no Sterling pact."
How about this - "No flexibility on Treasury terms = no more British nuclear deterrent." Are you impressed? No. Is there any difference between the two statements? No.
"Anti-independence campaigners say independence might not work" is not a story, no matter how excited you get by it.
James, the Treasury's statement is entirely consistent with its position on the Euro. Namely that a shared currency can only operate successfully if there is a co-ordinated and centrally controlled fiscal and monetary policy as well as a banking union. This is why Osborne is supporting the EU, ECB [and Germany's] movements towards implementing these requirements in the Eurozone.
The Treasury is hardly likely to support a currency union with an independent Scotland on terms which broadly differ from those it is recommending be implemented for the Euro.
In that respect, the policy quoted is merely a statement of the obvious and not a negotiating tactic.
In the 70's at the time of the McCrone report the UK Govt accepted scotland would be a hard currency, second only to Norway's koroner if they were independent, not that they released the news. They put a 30 year block on it and it only came out under FOI.
With oil still lasting 40 years or so, and despite half being wasted on Eurotunnels and paying debt south of hadrian's wall I think the case remains similar. It was supposed to run out in the 80's remember according to southern pollies in the 70's so we have all heard that story before.
Does anyoe seriously doubt that if independent that Scotland's own currency would not rise against the pound, with all that lovely VAT and export dollars heading into Edinburgh instead of London. Fool me once...
'How about this - "No flexibility on Treasury terms = no more British nuclear deterrent." Are you impressed? No. Is there any difference between the two statements? No
You really believe that there are no alternative plans for Trident in the unlikely event that Scotland votes yes to independence?
'In its first formal intervention on the currency debate, the Treasury will issue a report on Tuesday signalling that it would want to see significant restraints on Scottish economic policies before it agreed to a new currency union with an independent Scotland. If either side failed to agree on that deal, the Treasury will state, Scotland would need alternatives to a formal sterling pact. It could still use sterling without a currency union, leaving it with no influence on Bank of England policy, set up a new currency or join the euro.'
I think people need to realise that despite being called the Bank of England it is the bank of the Uk, and as such 8.4% or thereabouts of the assets and reserves are Scottish. Calling it England does not make it England. And as we have said ad nausem, England as part of the UK does not equate to simply being the whole of the UK despite the best intentions of many. Some honesty from those paid to avoid concensus in London would help on this banking matter.
"You really believe that there are no alternative plans for Trident in the unlikely event that Scotland votes yes to independence?"
'Unlikely event' - it's very hard to take you seriously when you say things like that. Well, perhaps what I can say to you is that the UK government may have credible alternative plans for Trident, but from what I've heard it's 'unlikely'.
"No agreement to Treasury terms no Sterling pact."
How about this - "No flexibility on Treasury terms = no more British nuclear deterrent." Are you impressed? No. Is there any difference between the two statements? No.
"Anti-independence campaigners say independence might not work" is not a story, no matter how excited you get by it.
James, the Treasury's statement is entirely consistent with its position on the Euro. Namely that a shared currency can only operate successfully if there is a co-ordinated and centrally controlled fiscal and monetary policy as well as a banking union. This is why Osborne is supporting the EU, ECB [and Germany's] movements towards implementing these requirements in the Eurozone.
The Treasury is hardly likely to support a currency union with an independent Scotland on terms which broadly differ from those it is recommending be implemented for the Euro.
In that respect, the policy quoted is merely a statement of the obvious and not a negotiating tactic.
In the 70's at the time of the McCrone report the UK Govt accepted scotland would be a hard currency, second only to Norway's koroner if they were independent, not that they released the news. They put a 30 year block on it and it only came out under FOI.
With oil still lasting 40 years or so, and despite half being wasted on Eurotunnels and paying debt south of hadrian's wall I think the case remains similar. It was supposed to run out in the 80's remember according to southern pollies in the 70's so we have all heard that story before.
Does anyoe seriously doubt that if independent that Scotland's own currency would not rise against the pound, with all that lovely VAT and export dollars heading into Edinburgh instead of London. Fool me once...
An independent Scotland would have three options:
1. Issue its own currency 2, Share Sterling with rUK under terms agreed with the Treasury and the BoE. 3. Share Euro with Eurozone countries under terms (yet to be) agreed with the EU Commission and the ECB.
There remains a possibility that the EU would treat Scotland as a new member and not permit options 1 and 2, but on balance I think this is unlikely given the history of its prior involvement in the EU through the UK. At least I can't see the EU disallowing the continued issuance of Sterling: they may rule out a Scottish currency except as an interim measure though.
The Tory vote in Scotland in October 1974, before Thatcher took over, was 24.7%. In 1992, after she'd gone, it was 25.7%. In her last election as PM in 1987 it was 24.0%. So not much change in the Tory vote over that period.
But she intensified anti-Tory tactical voting while she was leader, hence the seat losses the Scottish Tories managed in the 1983 and 1987 elections.
To be fair, the Tories may have had no seats after Forsyth's adventures as Gauleiter but 1 in 5 or close to it still voted Tory in those days.
Unlucky to get no seats when Libdems did so well with limited votes.
Fair enough, Cousin of Seth. When I said that Tom McNally was going to be Chancellor one day, I of course meant Deputy Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I hope you piled in.
Fair enough, Cousin of Seth. When I said that Tom McNally was going to be Chancellor one day, I of course meant Deputy Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I hope you piled in.
Don't worry, James, I suspect Pork is at this very moment rumbling through his sack of past posts to come up with the original post.
I guess if OGH can take my comments on polling seriously, Pork is permitted to do the same with my comments on Lansley's promotion prospects.
Fair enough, Cousin of Seth. When I said that Tom McNally was going to be Chancellor one day, I of course meant Deputy Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I hope you piled in.
Fair enough, Cousin of Seth. When I said that Tom McNally was going to be Chancellor one day, I of course meant Deputy Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I hope you piled in.
He tipped it once where it was leader though how explains that away in the context of him also talking about Obama I'll leave that to his feverish and desperate spinning.
But he quite explicitly said PM in another tip.
He could keep trying to pretend he was joking and mocking Lansley all those months he was spinning for him, which would of course mean he's still joking now and he's shifted to mocking the unfortunate Osbrowne. Trouble is only the likes of Neil would believe him and we all know the 'greens for Osborne' fan club is not exactly the most credible source on PB.
"No agreement to Treasury terms no Sterling pact."
How about this - "No flexibility on Treasury terms = no more British nuclear deterrent." Are you impressed? No. Is there any difference between the two statements? No.
"Anti-independence campaigners say independence might not work" is not a story, no matter how excited you get by it.
James, the Treasury's statement is entirely consistent with its position on the Euro. Namely that a shared currency can only operate successfully if there is a co-ordinated and centrally controlled fiscal and monetary policy as well as a banking union. This is why Osborne is supporting the EU, ECB [and Germany's] movements towards implementing these requirements in the Eurozone.
The Treasury is hardly likely to support a currency union with an independent Scotland on terms which broadly differ from those it is recommending be implemented for the Euro.
In that respect, the policy quoted is merely a statement of the obvious and not a negotiating tactic.
In the 70's at the time of the McCrone report the UK Govt accepted scotland would be a hard currency, second only to Norway's koroner if they were independent, not that they released the news. They put a 30 year block on it and it only came out under FOI.
With oil still lasting 40 years or so, and despite half being wasted on Eurotunnels and paying debt south of hadrian's wall I think the case remains similar. It was supposed to run out in the 80's remember according to southern pollies in the 70's so we have all heard that story before.
Does anyoe seriously doubt that if independent that Scotland's own currency would not rise against the pound, with all that lovely VAT and export dollars heading into Edinburgh instead of London. Fool me once...
An independent Scotland would have three options:
1. Issue its own currency 2, Share Sterling with rUK under terms agreed with the Treasury and the BoE. 3. Share Euro with Eurozone countries under terms (yet to be) agreed with the EU Commission and the ECB.
There remains a possibility that the EU would treat Scotland as a new member and not permit options 1 and 2, but on balance I think this is unlikely given the history of its prior involvement in the EU through the UK. At least I can't see the EU disallowing the continued issuance of Sterling: they may rule out a Scottish currency except as an interim measure though.
I would imagine that when a long time member like Sweden is forced to join the euro, (and with all the mess in Greece and Cyprus who would want to), then Scotland would be forced to do so as well. Having the euro and being in the EU are not prerequisites now, probably more so than ever. Personally I like the idea of a scottish pound tied to sterling for 12 months and then released onto the currency markets, where I would suggest it would go northwards against the pound and other currencies if it has been artifiically held at a low level due to being part of the UK and saddled with a share of its total debt. If Osborne suggests Scots pound would not rise with all the assets at that time then I think he has a proverbial screw loose, assuming he believes the stuff he spouts in the first place.
"No agreement to Treasury terms no Sterling pact."
How about this - "No flexibility on Treasury terms = no more British nuclear deterrent." Are you impressed? No. Is there any difference between the two statements? No.
"Anti-independence campaigners say independence might not work" is not a story, no matter how excited you get by it.
James, the Treasury's statement is entirely consistent with its position on the Euro. Namely that a shared currency can only operate successfully if there is a co-ordinated and centrally controlled fiscal and monetary policy as well as a banking union. This is why Osborne is supporting the EU, ECB [and Germany's] movements towards implementing these requirements in the Eurozone.
The Treasury is hardly likely to support a currency union with an independent Scotland on terms which broadly differ from those it is recommending be implemented for the Euro.
In that respect, the policy quoted is merely a statement of the obvious and not a negotiating tactic.
In the 70's at the time of the McCrone report the UK Govt accepted scotland would be a hard currency, second only to Norway's koroner if they were independent, not that they released the news. They put a 30 year block on it and it only came out under FOI.
With oil still lasting 40 years or so, and despite half being wasted on Eurotunnels and paying debt south of hadrian's wall I think the case remains similar. It was supposed to run out in the 80's remember according to southern pollies in the 70's so we have all heard that story before.
Does anyoe seriously doubt that if independent that Scotland's own currency would not rise against the pound, with all that lovely VAT and export dollars heading into Edinburgh instead of London. Fool me once...
An independent Scotland would have three options:
1. Issue its own currency 2, Share Sterling with rUK under terms agreed with the Treasury and the BoE. 3. Share Euro with Eurozone countries under terms (yet to be) agreed with the EU Commission and the ECB.
There remains a possibility that the EU would treat Scotland as a new member and not permit options 1 and 2, but on balance I think this is unlikely given the history of its prior involvement in the EU through the UK. At least I can't see the EU disallowing the continued issuance of Sterling: they may rule out a Scottish currency except as an interim measure though.
I would imagine that when a long time member like Sweden is forced to join the euro, (and with all the mess in Greece and Cyprus who would want to), then Scotland would be forced to do so as well. Having the euro and being in the EU are not prerequisites now, probably more so than ever. Personally I like the idea of a scottish pound tied to sterling for 12 months and then released onto the currency markets, where I would suggest it would go northwards against the pound and other currencies if it has been artifiically held at a low level due to being part of the UK and saddled with a share of its total debt. If Osborne suggests Scots pound would not rise with all the assets at that time then I think he has a proverbial screw loose, assuming he believes the stuff he spouts in the first place.
I am sure we are going over old ground here but the policy on Euro adoption is clear:
The 1992 Maastricht Treaty obliges most EU member states to adopt the euro upon meeting certain monetary and budgetary convergence criteria, although not all states have done so. The United Kingdom and Denmark negotiated exemptions, while Sweden (which joined the EU in 1995, after the Maastricht Treaty was signed) turned down the euro in a 2003 referendum, and has circumvented the obligation to adopt the euro by not meeting the monetary and budgetary requirements. All nations that have joined the EU since 1993 have pledged to adopt the euro in due course.
Although it is reasonable to assume that the rules may change as a result of the Euro crisis, that is not the current intention of the EU and there is more than a possibility that the Eurozone integration plans as currently envisaged will eventually be implemented.
Frankly, Scotland has two realistic currency options if it wants to join the EU: Sterling and the Euro, although Sterling may only be adopted as a stepping stone to the Euro.
The prospect of issuing its own currency, whilst techmically feasible, is likely to be ruled out on political grounds. At least until the referendum result is known!
So talk of Swedish loophole exemptions and fast appreciating petro-currency status is really pie-in-the-sky fantasy at this stage,.
Frankly, Scotland has two realistic currency options if it wants to join the EU: Sterling and the Euro
If Scotland was going to join the Euro, presumably it would have to first satisfy the membership criteria, like membership of the ERM. Since the UK isn't a member of the ERM, it follows that they couldn't get from the pound to the euro _without_ first creating their own currency.
The obvious steps here are: 1) Carry on using the pound. 2) Separate Scottish currency, pegged to the pound. 3) Drop the peg and join the ERM. 4) Join the Euro.
...but in practice they could stop at any stage, since any of these transitions would be easy to sabotage.
An independent Scotland that left the Bank of England in control of the money supply and acting as the lender of last resort does not look very independent.
Last week, economist Jim Cuthbert, frequently cited by the SNP, said in a report the Scottish Government should develop plans to create a new currency. He said meaningful independence was impossible in a currency union with the UK.
Former SNP deputy leader Jim Sillars has also called on the Scottish Government to keep the option of a separate currency open, and Professor John Kay, a former adviser to First Minister Alex Salmond, has said a new currency would be the "most likely outcome" of Scotland leaving the UK.
As a new member of the EU a newly independent Scotland would almost certainly have to undertake to join the Euro. To do so is a condition of membership. Scotland would have no automatic right to the opt out currently held by the UK. Whether they could obtain such an opt out would be a matter of negotiation.
It is possible, but no more than that, that a Scotland which was remaining a part of the sterling area would obtain that opt out. It is fairly inconceivable that a Scotland with its own currency would obtain such a right.
If this is correct it would rather seem to me that Scotland would have a rather weak hand in its negotiations with rUK. Scotland may well have greater economic freedom under devo max than it would have under such arrangements. The conditions for remaining a part of the sterling zone will be pretty much non-negotiable.
Tory councillor quits over remarks about ethnic children A councillor has resigned from the Conservative Party over remarks made about children from ethnic minorities.
John Cherry claimed Pakistani children would fail to "rise to the top" and that some nationalities were "uncertain" when it came to hard work.
He was responding to reports that an Eton-style boarding school could be opened in West Sussex.
In resigning, Mr Cherry, 73, who sits on Chichester District Council, said the comments were "extremely foolish".
Comments
Mr Rawnsley, the Blairite reporter-in-chief wrote in today's Observer that UKIP is putting up lots of candidates in the Manchester area to usurp the Tories as the anti Labour party.
Clearly, the wine got to him.
1 abolished council (there they try and claim they meant the western divisions of new Wiltshire council) and 3 with no elections
I'm sure there's a job advising UK political correspondents for you if you want it
If you want oils you need Conhome.
For spray cans acrylics and urban art go to Labourlist.
Bermondsey & Old Southwark: 8th June 2013
Enfield North: 23rd June 2013
Hornsey & Wood Green: 23rd June 2013
Hendon: 7th July 2013
Emnid:
CDU/CSU: 39%
SPD: 26%
Green: 14%
Linke: 8%
FDP: 5%
Pirates: 4%
Others: 4%
Infratest dimap:
CDU/CSU: 41%
SPD: 27%
Green: 14%
Linke: 7%
FDP: 4%
Others: 7%
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/index.htm
Bristol South: June 8
Manchester Withington: 8th June too
In Somerset NE they are already doing the supporting nominations process...so I would expect them to finish in early June too.
Tal Michael wrote he has been shortlisted in Arfon...so I guess the hustings may be in May there if they already have a shortlist.
MORGAN:
Coalition 47.5%
ALP 32%
Green 10.5%
Others 10%
Two-party preferred:
Coalition 56%
ALP 44%
ESSENTIAL:
Coalition 48%
ALP 34%
Green 9%
Others 9%
Two-party preferred:
Coalition 55%
ALP 45%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Australian_federal_election,_2013
Lab 39%
Con 30%
LD 11%
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
Re urban areas generally, UKIP will struggle in places that are very class-conscious (eg Liverpool) or with big ethnic minority and left-leaning middle classes (eg Manchester)
Here they are Sunilled -
Emnid
Centre-right coalition 44%
Centre-left coalition 40%
Linke 8%
Infratest
Centre-right coalition 41% (FDP miss threshold)
Centre-left coalition 41%
Linke 7%
... and that is why when anyone uses a link to back up their point, said link should be treated with considerable circumspection, most especially prolific posters on this site. A link is not proof.
The Labour leader invited Respect MP Mr Galloway to his Commons office, where they had a ‘cordial and friendly conversation’ for nearly an hour.
It has sparked rumours that Mr Miliband is considering allowing Mr Galloway to rejoin the party.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312375/Naive-Miliband-attacked-party-secret-George-Galloway-meeting.html#ixzz2R8QTXwVB
A whole hour? Well that's Galloway's HoC attendance for April tken care of!
Bringing Galloway back into the fold would be a tactical masterstroke for Miliband, which is a) why the Mail are hopping mad about it, and b) why it won't happen.
The rest will finish on Friday...but it's not straightforward as some Districts may count overnight and others within the same County on Friday. So we will likely get more results on the night that just these 4.
Northamptonshire plans to declare final results at 19:00 on Friday.
https://mobile.twitter.com/SkyNews/status/326075507382833152/photo/1
As some of us have been pointing out...
I hope you've noticed the collective shrug of shoulders every time you do. Even if it was true, a choice between getting inhuman weapons of mass destruction off our soil and holding on to a particular design of banknote is a bit of a no-brainer by any standards.
And of course, no-one wants "separation" anyway. Independence is a different matter, though.
Yes, the selections currently going on are mostly in Mets, Wales and London. Apart from Bristol which is selecting and voting at the same time.
The serious answer to that question is that it would neutralise the Respect threat, with Galloway reverting to being the fringe figure he always was when part of Labour.
He's unquestionably one of the best orators of his generation, though.
Why don't the tea party tories encourage omnishambles Osborne to make some more 'well judged' forays into the independence debate?
Oh right, he has. Another AAA master strategy from the incompetent fops.
LOL
Now they just need to get Osbrowne to do it every day if possible.
Scotland may have to join euro or create new currency if first minister fails to accept Treasury's terms for joining sterling."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/21/scottish-independence-salmond-currency-ultimatum
What terms? I thought David Cameron "wasn't prepared to negotiate Scotland's exit from the UK" until we actually won the referendum?
Oh wait - it's just the latest tedious scare story. Silly old me.
It is still unclear where Lady MacBeth of BNP comes from.
You add to the the awesome might of omnishambles Osborne and the park ranger and that's bound to scare anyone.
"Watching the interminable coverage of Thatcher’s death was absorbing. It was particularly fascinating to see how her acolytes and apologists worked furiously to cement her reputation in the public consciousness. The same phrases were used over and over again to describe the woman and her legacy.The most over-used was that she was a divisive character, that she fomented division in politics and society and across the UK. Loathed and loved in equal measure.
But they were wrong. Thatcher didn’t divide Scotland, she united us.
At every level and in every way, the Scots rejected her policies and her attempts to re-shape our beliefs. In many ways, her legacy lives on. And it will have done our young people no harm – many of whom have found their elders’ vehemence at the mere mention of her name bewildering and bemusing – to have had political history played out for them all over the media."
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2013/04/21/thatchers-disputed-legacy/
Please provide any link that you can think of that is absolute proof of anything (relative to a politcal argument).
It may be persuasive but its not and never is absolute proof.
They should learn to defeat the Respect threat at the ballot box and on the doorstep....possibly in a legal way.
IMO the threat is confined to a couple of seats at best considering Galloway can't stand everywhere (and that in Bethnal Green it became a Rahman's threat and that Salma left in Birmingham). In the great scheme of things it is less important as it would become crucial if Labour is 2 seats short of an overall majority (but in this case they are fuc*ed anyway as lasting 5 years in that situation is almost impossible). Maybe if Con and Lab have the same number of seats and the LibDems should decide which coalition to join.
The Tory vote in Scotland in October 1974, before Thatcher took over, was 24.7%. In 1992, after she'd gone, it was 25.7%. In her last election as PM in 1987 it was 24.0%. So not much change in the Tory vote over that period.
But lazy when it comes to campaigning? Not even close. The Bradford West by-election is still by far the biggest upset and most astute bit of guerrilla campaigning seen for years. Little Ed wishes he could mobilise voters in every seat with the efficiency Galloway did. For all the current Kipper infatuation Farage still couldn't leverage his protest votes into a seat win while Galloway could.
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/uk-local-elections?ev_oc_grp_ids=650768
* Derbyshire, Lancashire, Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Warwickshire, Worcestershire
Luckily Scotland, like everywhere else in the world, now embraces Thatcher's flagship policies. Scotland won't be seeing the return of the closed shop or secondary picketing, or the propping up of duff industries with taxpayers' money, thank goodness.
Besides everything else Paddy Power has Labour at 1/5 to win back Bradford West (and Respect at 3/1 dont strike me as conspicuous value)
I like Sandra White. I don't want Galloway to come back and campaign her out of Kelvin in guerrilla style.
Thatcherism was a catastrophe for the Scottish Tories, and the damage is probably irreparable.
We'll educate you yet.
Wait for any bets on Bradford before you know what the NEC do with AWS. They delayed the decision for Bradford East...I guess they want to dump the AWS there. But you never know with them.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/326083065380208641/photo/1
Purposeful toddlers, that's what Britain needs. Perhaps some purposeful ministers too.
It mirrors Tory losses in that respect.
You have 7 days. The central question is "was he an effective MP for Glasgow? Was he more effective than the other Glasgow Labour MPs? Was he different from the SLAB culture of late 90s/early 00s to take voters for granted with un-campaigning CLPs (as we discovered Glasgow East CLP didn't keep canvassing records...)?"
It can actually be a nice dissertation work!
(I hope it doesn't sound as a fight...I have Mediterranean blood, I get militant too soon...:-)
Pure comedy.
'Agreeing to a currency union would "hand to what would become a foreign government key decisions over the Scottish economy. This is one of the big contradictions in their whole economic approach [...] Calling for 'full fiscal freedom' with one breath, but calling for a 'full fiscal pact' with the next. It simply doesn't add up," they said.'
At least it's now clear that if Salmond wants to cling onto sterling,he will have zero influence.
For one thing that hatred is very real and can be traced to various ongoing feuds (they never stop and there are no shortage of them in scottish labour) in which he was never going to be an innocent bystander. Then you add in the internecine politics of Glasgow itself and it's hardly a surprise he will always raise hackles.
As for what an effective MP is, depends who you ask. If you ask the whips you know what the answer will be. If you ask the constituents I suspect it will always be mixed and tied in with how much they agree with his politics. If you asked Galloway I presume he would point to himself as being a campaigning MP raising the profile of issues he wants highlighted. If you ask other MPs many of them will most likely say he's a media whore not interested in the grind of surgery work and being commons lobby fodder.
The culture of taking voters for granted was always going to continue just as long as there was no threat to it. Now there is. Galloway likely used that culture and the safety it afforded to raise his own own profile while others just took it as a nice 'bonus' or perk of the job.
Does it make him a better MP than the others? I look at the state of Glasgow council and conclude anyone with power who could have done something to change that is implicated. So he doesn't get off the hook in my book. Nor do any of the others.
That sentence appears to be entirely devoid of all meaning or logic. Are you capable of explaining it?
http://www.guildford-dragon.com/2013/04/11/shalford-conservative-president-absolutley-livid-over-nomination-fiasco/
http://www.guildford-dragon.com/2013/04/08/election-agents-mistake-means-no-conservative-candidate-for-shalford-in-county-elections/
Doesn't quite cancel out the 'Fresh Choice for London' cock-up, though.
But others had similar reputations - a Tory noted for his vigorous use of Parliamentary procedure to disrupt Government business was said to chuck all personal requests in the bin, with the comment that he wasn't elected to deal with such stuff.
There's a respectable case for not wanting to bother with casework (I know Mike agrees), but MPs wishing to take this line should at least reply to say so.
Those wishing to understand the nature of the relationship with between the UK and the IMF should read the statement as much for its tone as its content.
Osborne is broadly supportive of the IMF and, in particular, many of its recently agreed reforms, new competences and projects. He is however frustrated by lack of progress in realising the internal IMF reforms and with delays by many member states in implementing their own commitments to the IMF.
His comments on Japan and the US are interesting and lay bare the divisions which exist between the fiscal consolidators and stimulus advocates:
The US took important action to avoid the fiscal cliff in 2012. In Japan, the authorities have just implemented a bold monetary and fiscal stimulus Package to fight deflation, but this has meant the postponement of much needed fiscal adjustment and structural reforms. In both countries, credible medium-term consolidation plans still need to be put in place and I look forward to seeing progress on this in 2013.
Osborne also calls for a more co-ordinated global approach to trade and exchange rate policies, with his remarks mainly addressed to the creditor nations:
If large deficit countries are going to successfully address their domestic imbalances, then
large surplus economies (both advanced and emerging markets) will need to help facilitate
the process. As national saving and deleveraging increases in the former, the latter will need
to shift from external to domestic sources of growth. Policy prescriptions differ depending
on national circumstances, but the basic elements are now well-known. As the Managing
Director’s Global Policy Agenda sets out, the full range of macroeconomic and structural
reforms are needed, including greater exchange rate flexibility and financial reform. I would
also emphasise the importance of our commitment to free trade and investment, and our pledge to avoid all forms of protectionism. I hope to see progress on a more cooperative
approach in 2013 - this will be key to ensuring a stronger recovery for us all.
On the UK economy and on progress with his fiscal consolidation plans Osborne is cautiously optimistic on outcomes and confident in his policies:
In the UK there are still very large fiscal challenges. The deficit is forecast to be the highest in Europe in 2013 and gross debt is set to reach 100 percent of GDP in the coming years. The UK also has a large and systemically important financial sector, which the IMF described as a “global public good” in the 2011 UK Spillover Report. A strong and credible consolidation plan is therefore essential for global, as well as domestic, financial stability. I will continue to implement my medium-term fiscal consolidation plan, using the flexibility in the fiscal framework to deliver gradual and sustained adjustment, targeting the structural balance and allowing the automatic stabilisers to operate fully. This plan is projected to deliver a structural adjustment of 0.9 percent of GDP on average over the next three years. The IMF judge that, on average, 1 percent of GDP structural adjustment per year remains broadly appropriate for advanced economies.
The importance of banking reform is also highlighted:
Most importantly, measures are needed to address balance sheet weakness. The UK has been a strong advocate of actions to strengthen the resilience of the banking sector and robust stress testing. Recent policy recommendations from the UK’s Financial Policy Committee to strengthen capital buffers, along with the Funding for Lending Scheme, should improve the supply of credit in the UK. Similar actions are needed elsewhere, particularly in the euro area. ...
As the home of some of the world's biggest banks and the host to many more in one of the world’s largest systemic financial centres, the UK is continuing to lead from the front in this area. The Banking Reform Bill is introducing structural reforms to improve the safety of banks, protect taxpayers and ensure a more stable UK financial sector.
These are the words of a confident and committed Chancellor leading global efforts to effect economic recovery.
What a pity the UK media spent its time at the IMF conference dabbling in water-cooler gossip and spinning misleading, inaccurate and irrelevant tales of Osborne being "warned by the IMF to change his plans".
If anyone was doing the warning in Washington it was George himself.
Anyone doubting my words can download the (4 page) text of the speech from the following link:
http://www.imf.org/External/spring/2013/imfc/statement/eng/gbr.pdf
No agreement to Treasury terms no Sterling pact.
'In its first formal intervention on the currency debate, the Treasury will issue a report on Tuesday signalling that it would want to see significant restraints on Scottish economic policies before it agreed to a new currency union with an independent Scotland. If either side failed to agree on that deal, the Treasury will state, Scotland would need alternatives to a formal sterling pact. It could still use sterling without a currency union, leaving it with no influence on Bank of England policy, set up a new currency or join the euro.'
How about this - "No flexibility on Treasury terms = no more British nuclear deterrent." Are you impressed? No. Is there any difference between the two statements? No.
"Anti-independence campaigners say independence might not work" is not a story, no matter how excited you get by it.
The Treasury is hardly likely to support a currency union with an independent Scotland on terms which broadly differ from those it is recommending be implemented for the Euro.
In that respect, the policy quoted is merely a statement of the obvious and not a negotiating tactic.
Not sure that this was the govts intention but
Are you suggesting that the UK government are non-hypocrites? It's a novel view, Avery, but a bit radical for my taste.
No agreement, no acorns.
No Lansley as PM, no chance of ever taking you seriously.
In this respect it is probable that the Treasury's terms would be more favourable to an independent Scotland than the equivalent policies and controls being implemented in the Eurozone.
I'm not sure I see anything hypocritical here. There is certainly no suggestion of there being "one set of rules for England" and "another set of more stringent rules for Scotland".
With oil still lasting 40 years or so, and despite half being wasted on Eurotunnels and paying debt south of hadrian's wall I think the case remains similar.
It was supposed to run out in the 80's remember according to southern pollies in the 70's so we have all heard that story before.
Does anyoe seriously doubt that if independent that Scotland's own currency would not rise against the pound, with all that lovely VAT and export dollars heading into Edinburgh instead of London.
Fool me once...
'How about this - "No flexibility on Treasury terms = no more British nuclear deterrent." Are you impressed? No. Is there any difference between the two statements? No
You really believe that there are no alternative plans for Trident in the unlikely event that Scotland votes yes to independence?
Calling it England does not make it England.
And as we have said ad nausem, England as part of the UK does not equate to simply being the whole of the UK despite the best intentions of many.
Some honesty from those paid to avoid concensus in London would help on this banking matter.
'Unlikely event' - it's very hard to take you seriously when you say things like that. Well, perhaps what I can say to you is that the UK government may have credible alternative plans for Trident, but from what I've heard it's 'unlikely'.
Did Cousin of Seth think that ANDREW LANSLEY was going to become PRIME MINISTER?
Oh dear.
1. Issue its own currency
2, Share Sterling with rUK under terms agreed with the Treasury and the BoE.
3. Share Euro with Eurozone countries under terms (yet to be) agreed with the EU Commission and the ECB.
There remains a possibility that the EU would treat Scotland as a new member and not permit options 1 and 2, but on balance I think this is unlikely given the history of its prior involvement in the EU through the UK. At least I can't see the EU disallowing the continued issuance of Sterling: they may rule out a Scottish currency except as an interim measure though.
Unlucky to get no seats when Libdems did so well with limited votes.
And lo and behold the great Lansley became "leader of the house".
Pork has never forgiven himself for not following my tip.
You tipped him to be Prime Minister and no amount of incompetent spinning will get you out of that.
It's not that you spin Seth, it's that you are so sh** at it.
I guess if OGH can take my comments on polling seriously, Pork is permitted to do the same with my comments on Lansley's promotion prospects.
[Well at least it was a threat to repost]
But he quite explicitly said PM in another tip.
He could keep trying to pretend he was joking and mocking Lansley all those months he was spinning for him, which would of course mean he's still joking now and he's shifted to mocking the unfortunate Osbrowne. Trouble is only the likes of Neil would believe him and we all know the 'greens for Osborne' fan club is not exactly the most credible source on PB.
Personally I like the idea of a scottish pound tied to sterling for 12 months and then released onto the currency markets, where I would suggest it would go northwards against the pound and other currencies if it has been artifiically held at a low level due to being part of the UK and saddled with a share of its total debt.
If Osborne suggests Scots pound would not rise with all the assets at that time then I think he has a proverbial screw loose, assuming he believes the stuff he spouts in the first place.
The 1992 Maastricht Treaty obliges most EU member states to adopt the euro upon meeting certain monetary and budgetary convergence criteria, although not all states have done so. The United Kingdom and Denmark negotiated exemptions, while Sweden (which joined the EU in 1995, after the Maastricht Treaty was signed) turned down the euro in a 2003 referendum, and has circumvented the obligation to adopt the euro by not meeting the monetary and budgetary requirements. All nations that have joined the EU since 1993 have pledged to adopt the euro in due course.
Although it is reasonable to assume that the rules may change as a result of the Euro crisis, that is not the current intention of the EU and there is more than a possibility that the Eurozone integration plans as currently envisaged will eventually be implemented.
Frankly, Scotland has two realistic currency options if it wants to join the EU: Sterling and the Euro, although Sterling may only be adopted as a stepping stone to the Euro.
The prospect of issuing its own currency, whilst techmically feasible, is likely to be ruled out on political grounds. At least until the referendum result is known!
So talk of Swedish loophole exemptions and fast appreciating petro-currency status is really pie-in-the-sky fantasy at this stage,.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMnaiOy3AI4
The obvious steps here are:
1) Carry on using the pound.
2) Separate Scottish currency, pegged to the pound.
3) Drop the peg and join the ERM.
4) Join the Euro.
...but in practice they could stop at any stage, since any of these transitions would be easy to sabotage.
A similar argument has been made by a number of supporters of independence, including the Scottish Greens, economists Jim Cuthbert and Professor John Kay and former SNP deputy leader Jim Sillars, who believe an independent Scotland would be economically stronger with its own currency.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/herald-view/more-detail-needed-on-key-issue-of-currency.20873499
Former SNP deputy leader Jim Sillars has also called on the Scottish Government to keep the option of a separate currency open, and Professor John Kay, a former adviser to First Minister Alex Salmond, has said a new currency would be the "most likely outcome" of Scotland leaving the UK.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/scottish-banknotes-at-risk.20872840
It is possible, but no more than that, that a Scotland which was remaining a part of the sterling area would obtain that opt out. It is fairly inconceivable that a Scotland with its own currency would obtain such a right.
If this is correct it would rather seem to me that Scotland would have a rather weak hand in its negotiations with rUK. Scotland may well have greater economic freedom under devo max than it would have under such arrangements. The conditions for remaining a part of the sterling zone will be pretty much non-negotiable.
A councillor has resigned from the Conservative Party over remarks made about children from ethnic minorities.
John Cherry claimed Pakistani children would fail to "rise to the top" and that some nationalities were "uncertain" when it came to hard work.
He was responding to reports that an Eton-style boarding school could be opened in West Sussex.
In resigning, Mr Cherry, 73, who sits on Chichester District Council, said the comments were "extremely foolish".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-22243953