At least they didn't call him a millionaire son of a dodgy stockbroker.
Piss poor Photoshop effort. I hope it was a freebie.
I don't think it was supposed to look convincing...
These boys are too thick to see it
It made me laugh. "Dishface" is a fantastic insult.
I don't get it.
I believe it's a poke at Cameron's disconcertingly round, smooth and shiny face.
So it would be perfectly acceptable to label Salmond, 'Toadface'?
It's a silly joke on Twitter. That's it. It no worse than digs at Salmond's wife on here.
Digs at someone's partner would be far worse, particularly if they are not themselves a public figure. Getting crude, pathetic insults thrown at yourself is just a part of the job, unfortunately, although that doesn't mean those making the insults can not be criticised for doing it, as they are still ultimately in the wrong even if it is normal practice.
'Salmond is going to constantly refer to a currency union as the most desirable outcome right until September 18th, an outcome that he'll say that Osballs is still bluffing about, the outcome he offered to discuss reasonably and without prejudice'
Why bother as we are constantly being told that a currency union is a minor issue and is not going to change any votes?
I don't usually bother with the Football Conference posters, however:
BECAUSE IT HIGHLIGHTS THAT THESE ***** DON'T GIVE A **** ABOUT SCOTLAND AND CAN'T BE TRUSTED!
At least they didn't call him a millionaire son of a dodgy stockbroker.
Piss poor Photoshop effort. I hope it was a freebie.
I don't think it was supposed to look convincing...
These boys are too thick to see it
It made me laugh. "Dishface" is a fantastic insult.
I don't get it.
I believe it's a poke at Cameron's disconcertingly round, smooth and shiny face.
So it would be perfectly acceptable to label Salmond, 'Toadface'?
It's a silly joke on Twitter. That's it. It no worse than digs at Salmond's wife on here.
Just a thought, not from a party partisan point of view, but a general one. Mrs Salmond is not - as far as I know - 'deployed' in politics in the way Mrs Cameron and Clegg most certainly are to bolster their husbands' political careers (as far as I can tell - not sure about Mrs Miliband). So is she relevant to public politics at all, any more than Messrs' C and C's young children would be?
Ok, attacked the wife is far worse in this. My point was that The Watcher was being [unusually] po-faced about the Cameron gag.
''I'm starting to think it's wise for Labour figures to steer clear of the campaign.''
Ed should back away from what is the gravest threat to his party's well being since its inception?
LOL...
It's the gift that keeps on giving.
I am an enthusiastic Unionist. But then I pause a moment amidst all the bluster and think - so ok suppose there is a Yes vote. Scotland secedes, fair enough, it it's what they really want.
And then I think about the inevitable currency union which to all intents and purposes will look like DevoMax but without the Labour MPs and, much like an esteemed nationalist contributor here, I do allow myself a chortle.
Some pretty damning evidence that this winters floods were made worse my governmental policy (not only the coalition) and ineptitude and worse for years:
Even the likes of Farage will be relishing having a battle with the toxic Clegg over that.
as peoples' ideas should never be discarded out of hand just because of who they are
Problem there is that Clegg made a huge play of being the "no more broken promises" guy in 2010. It's one of the main reasons he is so toxic now. So if you start off defining who and what you are by what you are NOT, and then that gets smashed to pieces, it's little wonder that the public have no idea what the lib dems stand for now.
Now we get to see the spectacle of Clegg trying to define himself and the lib dems by not being Farage or the kippers. Problem there is that the lib dems are most certainly not uniform on their views of the EU now even if they ever were. So those banking on being pro-EU as the thing to get the lib dems away from flatlining on 10% since late 2010 might be in for quite a disappointment. Where it WILL work however is giving Farage huge publicity and thus boosting the kipper tory waverers and diminishing the tory vote in contested lib dem tory areas
At least they didn't call him a millionaire son of a dodgy stockbroker.
Piss poor Photoshop effort. I hope it was a freebie.
I don't think it was supposed to look convincing...
These boys are too thick to see it
It made me laugh. "Dishface" is a fantastic insult.
I don't get it.
I believe it's a poke at Cameron's disconcertingly round, smooth and shiny face.
So it would be perfectly acceptable to label Salmond, 'Toadface'?
It's a silly joke on Twitter. That's it. It no worse than digs at Salmond's wife on here.
Just a thought, not from a party partisan point of view, but a general one. Mrs Salmond is not - as far as I know - 'deployed' in politics in the way Mrs Cameron and Clegg most certainly are to bolster their husbands' political careers (as far as I can tell - not sure about Mrs Miliband). So is she relevant to public politics at all, any more than Messrs' C and C's young children would be?
I certainly don't think so (not sure if Mrs Clegg is 'deployed' to use your term, all that much, but on occasion is I think) - I don't think the views/actions of or details of a spouse or partner are of any concern to the public in any way unless in their own right they are a political figure. If they are used to bolster their partner's profile and career (usually the wife for the husband), they open themselves up to a certain level of attention, although not owed any official political influence (first lady initiatives or something), but if they do not seek the spotlight, no focus should be paid.
On a tangent to that, the focus on personal life was one reason I started getting sick of that show The Good Wife. First couple of seasons of course it made sense that so much focus would be paid to the wife and the relationship, given the husband had cheated on her, but by the fourth season, in a lame attempt to maintain the original premise which had long since moved on, hearing characters over and over again go 'It is imperative the wife does x/y if you are to win' just seemed so improbable. Like, I'm sure the wife's views would be important given that personal history, but to play it like it was the key thing in every political act? Come on.
It was always that , just Westminster and media are too stupid to read or listen to what was said.
I claim millionaire son of a marxist was theirs in their drunken stupidity.
Alex Salmond himself didn't know this last Monday.
Funny, PB's favourite Somerset-based Cybernat seemed to know it 10 days ago.
Explain the lengthy references to the George Tax last week in the context of this week's Plan B. Do not attempt to write on both sides of the paper at the same time.
Salmond is going to constantly refer to a currency union as the most desirable outcome right until September 18th, an outcome that he'll say that Osballs is still bluffing about, the outcome he offered to discuss reasonably and without prejudice. However if the Westminster parties has chosen to go Tonto, he'll regretfully but sensibly outline a back up position. Whether you think that will have less currency with the electorate than Westminster stonewalling, well, you'll just have to use your intimate sense of what's happening in Scotland to work that out.
What are the SNP's red lines on a currency union?
A. I'm not the SNP
B. You do know what negotiation means?
Yes, to negotiate you have to be prepared to walk away. So let's forget the SNP: what are your red lines?
Mine is a YES vote.
And you are a nationalist who would take independence in any form over the status quo. But, as Salmond and Sturgeon know, you are not a typical voter in the referendum - hence their fibs.
SO , I partly agree but would suggest they are merely pointing out that there are several options contrary to what Westminster claims. The unionists lie day in and day out on everything about Scotland, I do not see any comment on here regarding that.
Should Scotland become independent, I think it is almost inevitable they will chose to have their own currency, but peg it to the British Pound. In this way, they will copy the Irish post independence, and Hong Kong, whose currency is pegged to the US Dollar.
There are questions on here about Scotland's financial services industry under such a scenario. I think those questions are misplaced. In the event that Scotland became independent, the British PLC, Royal Bank of Scotland would remain a British PLC. They would probably make their London corporate office the official headquarters. Given that only a small portion of RBS's asset base is in Scotland, they would be crazy to do otherwise. The same is true of almost all Scottish finance companies, with the exception of the asset management industry.
Under this scenario, RBS Group PLC would be a British public company, and Scottish activities would be carried out by a much smaller RBS Banking (Scotland) Ltd subsidiary. In this way, RBS would avoid the risk of being too big to be bailed out by the British tax payer. It would also minimise currency translation risks.
Of course, Scotland would be at the mercy of the Bank of England's monetary policy. However, because the peg could be broken, and all new debts would be denominated in Scottish pounds, they would have a get out in the event things went truly tits up. (I.e. they could break the peg and print new Scottish pounds to pay off their debts.)
Even the likes of Farage will be relishing having a battle with the toxic Clegg over that.
as peoples' ideas should never be discarded out of hand just because of who they are
Problem there is that Clegg made a huge play of being the "no more broken promises" guy in 2010. It's one of the main reasons he is so toxic now. So if you start off defining yourself as who and what you are by what you are NOT, and then that gets smashed to pieces, it's little wonder that the public have no idea what the lib dems stand for now.
Now we get to see the spectacle of Clegg trying to define himself and the lib dems by not being Farage or the kippers. Problem there is that the lib dems are most certainly not uniform on their views of the EU now even if they ever were. So those banking on being pro-EU as the thing to get the lib dems away from flatlining on 10% since late 2010 might be in for quite a disappointment. Where it WILL work however is giving Farage huge publicity and thus boosting the kipper tory waverers and diminishing the tory vote in contested lib dem tory areas.
Not saying past statements and actions should not inform how we interpret someone's ideas of course, but I stil maintain the Clegg toxicity is overblown, in part because Labour and the Tories will so desperately wish for the LDs to be much diminished, as from their perspective all the LDs are are an impedient to gaining a majority.
Hadn't considered the last part about diminishing the Tory vote - definitely worth a shot I guess. I tend to think of the UKIP vote as pretty solid by this point, but for a Euopean election I guess there's still a chance proper Tories will be willing to cross over on this occasion.
Whether it’s overall a good idea or not, however, independence would have to rest on a sound monetary foundation. And the independence movement has me worried, because what it has said on that that crucial subject seems deeply muddle-headed.
What the independence movement says is that there’s no problem — Scotland will simply stay on the pound. That is, however, much more problematic than they seem to realize.
It’s true, as pointed out here, that England, I mean the rump UK, I mean continuing Britain, whatever, can’t prevent the Scots from using the pound, just as the United States can’t stop Ecuador from using dollars. But the lesson of the euro crisis, surely, is that sharing a common currency without having a shared federal government is very dangerous.
In fact, Scotland-on-the-pound would be in even worse shape than the euro countries, because the Bank of England would be under no obligation to act as lender of last resort to Scottish banks — that is, it would arguably take even less responsibility for local financial stability than the pre-Draghi ECB. And it would fall very far short of the post-Draghi ECB, which has in effect taken on the role of lender of last resort to eurozone governments, too.
I've been walking round Bangkok with my old-fashioned Rough Guide and, guess what, I didn't spot a single other person - either Thai or tourist - using a paper book the whole time I've been here.
I wonder if labour's cause is damaged in Scotland even if there's a no vote, after the way Milli decided to jump with the hated tories on currency union.
The nats on the site don;t seem to think so, though.
Should Scotland become independent, I think it is almost inevitable they will chose to have their own currency, but peg it to the British Pound. In this way, they will copy the Irish post independence, and Hong Kong, whose currency is pegged to the US Dollar.
There are questions on here about Scotland's financial services industry under such a scenario. I think those questions are misplaced. In the event that Scotland became independent, the British PLC, Royal Bank of Scotland would remain a British PLC. They would probably make their London corporate office the official headquarters. Given that only a small portion of RBS's asset base is in Scotland, they would be crazy to do otherwise. The same is true of almost all Scottish finance companies, with the exception of the asset management industry.
Under this scenario, RBS Group PLC would be a British public company, and Scottish activities would be carried out by a much smaller RBS Banking (Scotland) Ltd subsidiary. In this way, RBS would avoid the risk of being too big to be bailed out by the British tax payer. It would also minimise currency translation risks.
Of course, Scotland would be at the mercy of the Bank of England's monetary policy. However, because the peg could be broken, and all new debts would be denominated in Scottish pounds, they would have a get out in the event things went truly tits up. (I.e. they could break the peg and print new Scottish pounds to pay off their debts.)
Whether it’s overall a good idea or not, however, independence would have to rest on a sound monetary foundation. And the independence movement has me worried, because what it has said on that that crucial subject seems deeply muddle-headed.
What the independence movement says is that there’s no problem — Scotland will simply stay on the pound. That is, however, much more problematic than they seem to realize.
It’s true, as pointed out here, that England, I mean the rump UK, I mean continuing Britain, whatever, can’t prevent the Scots from using the pound, just as the United States can’t stop Ecuador from using dollars. But the lesson of the euro crisis, surely, is that sharing a common currency without having a shared federal government is very dangerous.
In fact, Scotland-on-the-pound would be in even worse shape than the euro countries, because the Bank of England would be under no obligation to act as lender of last resort to Scottish banks — that is, it would arguably take even less responsibility for local financial stability than the pre-Draghi ECB. And it would fall very far short of the post-Draghi ECB, which has in effect taken on the role of lender of last resort to eurozone governments, too.
Some pretty damning evidence that this winters floods were made worse my governmental policy (not only the coalition) and ineptitude and worse for years:
That piece is absolute rubbish for any number of reasons, and I speak as someone who has been highly critical of the EA in this mess. Firstly, it is more an ill thought-out polemic than a considered argument.
Secondly, and sadly for the anti-green brigade, 'green' policies such as SuDS may be part of the answer going forwards, as may planting more trees.
He does make a good point in the fact that the RSPB have got questions to answer in this ...
''I'm starting to think it's wise for Labour figures to steer clear of the campaign.''
Ed should back away from what is the gravest threat to his party's well being since its inception?
LOL...
It's the gift that keeps on giving.
I am an enthusiastic Unionist. But then I pause a moment amidst all the bluster and think - so ok suppose there is a Yes vote. Scotland secedes, fair enough, it it's what they really want.
And then I think about the inevitable currency union which to all intents and purposes will look like DevoMax but without the Labour MPs and, much like an esteemed nationalist contributor here, I do allow myself a chortle.
Trouble is, TOPPING, that all you have left is the now toxic Tory party. Probably very good for UKIP though.
I don't have a tablet, smartphone or smartwatch, so I'd probably use a similar sort of guide. Then again, I'm about as old-fashioned as it's possible to be with such gadgetry whilst still publishing stuff online. I think my Kindle is the only thing that could be considered a gadget (and that has ye olde keyboard).
So it would be perfectly acceptable to label Salmond, 'Toadface'?
Ooh, a Cameroon exposed!
Hardly. Cameron has a face like a dish, Salmond looks like a toad. Still thinking about Miliband.
I find it impossible to hero worship a politician, unlike the Nats for whom it is clearly a religion.
So PB Tory whines about Dave being called Dishface and Nat says he doesn't care about Salmond being called Toadface, and you say it's Nats that worship Salmond?
but I stil maintain the Clegg toxicity is overblown
It worries me not a jot if tories or labour want it to be or not. I can assure you that the toxicity is real and I'm still staggered that some lib dems don't seem to have worked out how having Clegg as a frontman for the 2015 election might not be the wisest of ideas. Clegg's been doing this absurd radio phone in 'detoxification' strategy for how long now? Newsflash to Cleggy, it ain't working.
Hadn't considered the last part about diminishing the Tory vote - definitely worth a shot I guess. I tend to think of the UKIP vote as pretty solid by this point, but for a Euopean election I guess there's still a chance proper Tories will be willing to cross over on this occasion.
The kipper vote is far from solid even though it's been pretty static since about September last year. However, as you can plainly see when a set of May elections hits then movement there most definitely is and shall be again this May.
Those drops from the tories and labour are what Clegg is banking on since he knows the chances of significantly shifting the lib dem vote from where it's been flatlining since late 2010 are somewhat unlikely.
I've been using laptops since 1987 and mobiles since 1989 so I'm not exactly backwards when it comes to new technology, but when I have a holiday I like to have a bit of a rest from all that jazz. I was even using a compass to orient myself on the streets, along with two paper maps.
I wonder if labour's cause is damaged in Scotland even if there's a no vote, after the way Milli decided to jump with the hated tories on currency union.
The nats on the site don;t seem to think so, though.
Well, I don't know if I count as a nat for you despite not being a SNP member. But I think so, (and indeed have been saying pretty much that on and off but you may well have missed them).
''I'm starting to think it's wise for Labour figures to steer clear of the campaign.''
Ed should back away from what is the gravest threat to his party's well being since its inception?
LOL...
It's the gift that keeps on giving.
I am an enthusiastic Unionist. But then I pause a moment amidst all the bluster and think - so ok suppose there is a Yes vote. Scotland secedes, fair enough, it it's what they really want.
And then I think about the inevitable currency union which to all intents and purposes will look like DevoMax but without the Labour MPs and, much like an esteemed nationalist contributor here, I do allow myself a chortle.
Trouble is, TOPPING, that all you have left is the now toxic Tory party. Probably very good for UKIP though.
I know it's dreadful but what is one to do? As the man said (I paraphrase), the Tory party is the worst possible centre right political party. Apart from all the others that have been tried from time to time.
''I'm starting to think it's wise for Labour figures to steer clear of the campaign.''
Ed should back away from what is the gravest threat to his party's well being since its inception?
LOL...
It's the gift that keeps on giving.
I am an enthusiastic Unionist. But then I pause a moment amidst all the bluster and think - so ok suppose there is a Yes vote. Scotland secedes, fair enough, it it's what they really want.
And then I think about the inevitable currency union which to all intents and purposes will look like DevoMax but without the Labour MPs and, much like an esteemed nationalist contributor here, I do allow myself a chortle.
Trouble is, TOPPING, that all you have left is the now toxic Tory party. Probably very good for UKIP though.
I know it's dreadful but what is one to do? As the man said (I paraphrase), the Tory party is the worst possible centre right political party. Apart from all the others that have been tried from time to time.
(and indeed have been saying pretty much that on and off but you may well have missed them).
Thanks Carnyx. It seems to me that from a Scottish perspective Milliband has shown where his loyalites really are. In ruling out currency union he has in effect put English marginals over Scottish heartlands.
But then I don;t pretend to know Scottish politics.
Should Scotland become independent, I think it is almost inevitable they will chose to have their own currency, but peg it to the British Pound. In this way, they will copy the Irish post independence, and Hong Kong, whose currency is pegged to the US Dollar.
There are questions on here about Scotland's financial services industry under such a scenario. I think those questions are misplaced. In the event that Scotland became independent, the British PLC, Royal Bank of Scotland would remain a British PLC. They would probably make their London corporate office the official headquarters. Given that only a small portion of RBS's asset base is in Scotland, they would be crazy to do otherwise. The same is true of almost all Scottish finance companies, with the exception of the asset management industry.
Under this scenario, RBS Group PLC would be a British public company, and Scottish activities would be carried out by a much smaller RBS Banking (Scotland) Ltd subsidiary. In this way, RBS would avoid the risk of being too big to be bailed out by the British tax payer. It would also minimise currency translation risks.
Of course, Scotland would be at the mercy of the Bank of England's monetary policy. However, because the peg could be broken, and all new debts would be denominated in Scottish pounds, they would have a get out in the event things went truly tits up. (I.e. they could break the peg and print new Scottish pounds to pay off their debts.)
Do currency pegs work post-George Soros?
Depends - the Hong Kong Dollar is pegged to the US Dollar and doesn't appear to have had any issue (yet).
Currency pegs to anything (gold, other currencies, etc.) fail in the event that the market exchange rate and the peg start to differ by a substantial amount.
In the case of currencies, this happens in situations where economies are not particularly entwined.
For Scotland and rUK, in the short-term at least, that would not be the case. Obviously, if Scotland pursued fiscally irresponsible policies, then it would become the case in time. Likewise, if we were irresponsible.
However, given the free movement of goods, services, etc., between Scotland and the rest of the UK there is no reason to expect that the prices of said goods and services would vary much in the short term.
For the record, there have been speculative attacks on government pegs throughout the history of finance. George Soros was hardly the first, merely the most famous. Lots of people made money on the breakup of Bretton Woods, for example - but they had to wait thirty years to make it (and lost a lot in the intervening period). The punt-pound peg was maintained too.
I enjoy the way you avoid engaging with the issues.
Enjoy away, I evidently have different ideas on engagement and issues. I'd suggest that stridently demanding answers on an issue you don't have a consistent view on yourself isn't engagement.
My view is entirely consistent. I believe there'll be a currency union on terms dictated by the rUK.
Feckn hell, and you're accusing the SNP of dishonesty.
Sorry, I don't get that. How am I being dishonest?
It was always that , just Westminster and media are too stupid to read or listen to what was said.
Indeed. You have it to the posh idiots and bubble thinkers on PB. Next thing they'll be trying to claim millionaire son of a marxist was theirs in their drunken stupidity.
Alex Salmond himself didn't know this last Monday.
Funny, PB's favourite Somerset-based Cybernat seemed to know it 10 days ago.
'(*Nicola Sturgeon all but screamed the Scottish Government’s “Plan B” on currency into Andrew Neil’s ear on the Daily Politics yesterday. Once again, Neil and the rest of the nation’s media either just weren’t listening, or didn’t understand basic Politician. Anyone still telling you we don’t know what “Plan B” is is a slack-jawed halfwit.)'
Explain the lengthy references to the George Tax last week in the context of this week's Plan B. Do not attempt to write on both sides of the paper at the same time.
Salmond is going to constantly refer to a currency union as the most desirable outcome right until September 18th, an outcome that he'll say that Osballs is still bluffing about, the outcome he offered to discuss reasonably and without prejudice. However if the Westminster parties has chosen to go Tonto, he'll regretfully but sensibly outline a back up position. Whether you think that will have less currency with the electorate than Westminster stonewalling, well, you'll just have to use your intimate sense of what's happening in Scotland to work that out.
What are the SNP's red lines on a currency union?
A. I'm not the SNP
B. You do know what negotiation means?
Careful or he'll start shrieking about 'prejudice' and the nasty Catalan Independence movement.
More foot stamping than a Flamenco convention going on here this afternoon.
MacDivvie
The Unionists may be stamping their feet but you need the Nats to start clicking for your Flamenco analogy to work.
'David Cameron would "absolutely" support an independent Scotland's application to join the European Union, he told STV Political Editor Bernard Ponsonby.'
(and indeed have been saying pretty much that on and off but you may well have missed them).
Thanks Carnyx. It seems to me that from a Scottish perspective Milliband has shown where his loyalites really are. In ruling out currency union he has in effect put English marginals over Scottish heartlands.
But then I don;t pretend to know Scottish politics.
Hmm, that's one way of looking at it. Thinking about your comment, I wonder if Mr M is deliberately lying low to keep his options open and letting the Tories and LDs take as much of the indy flak as possible.
(a) maybe he judges Yes might win , so he is getting ready for the blame game south of the border, and/or (bi) he thinks the Labour tribal vote will still hold up for the referendum and get a No despite his and Mr Balls' siding with the Tories, in which case we get the implication (bii) that he thinks he needs to put more effort into getting DM readers in the southern suburbs and White Van Persons than in getting out the Scottish tribal vote in the 2015 UKGE.
It is perhaps relevant that playing with Electoral Calculus suggests that the SNP need to get about 5 percentage points over Labour before they start to get more MP seats than Labour. If I were Mr M, I'd be worried about some recent polls - but by no means all. And early days yet
(and indeed have been saying pretty much that on and off but you may well have missed them).
Thanks Carnyx. It seems to me that from a Scottish perspective Milliband has shown where his loyalites really are. In ruling out currency union he has in effect put English marginals over Scottish heartlands.
But then I don;t pretend to know Scottish politics.
Hmm, that's one way of looking at it. Thinking about your comment, I wonder if Mr M is deliberately lying low to keep his options open and letting the Tories and LDs take as much of the indy flak as possible.
(a) maybe he judges Yes might win , so he is getting ready for the blame game south of the border, and/or (bi) he thinks the Labour tribal vote will still hold up for the referendum and get a No despite his and Mr Balls' siding with the Tories, in which case we get the implication (bii) that he thinks he needs to put more effort into getting DM readers in the southern suburbs and White Van Persons than in getting out the Scottish tribal vote in the 2015 UKGE.
It is perhaps relevant that playing with Electoral Calculus suggests that the SNP need to get about 5 percentage points over Labour before they start to get more MP seats than Labour. If I were Mr M, I'd be worried about some recent polls - but by no means all. And early days yet
Carnyx , they are quiet because they have no story to tell, in Scotland Labour are invisible. The biggest decision this country will have made in its history and there are no Labour people to be seen. It is incredible.
It's a crap poster. Take out the "Son of a Marxist" line and it could apply to any of our political elite.
Off topic, I've just had a nice letter from Mr Cameron, urging me to register for a postal vote for the Euros and beyond. I'm a bit miffed, do I look like a Tory pensioner?
'David Cameron would "absolutely" support an independent Scotland's application to join the European Union, he told STV Political Editor Bernard Ponsonby.'
'David Cameron would "absolutely" support an independent Scotland's application to join the European Union, he told STV Political Editor Bernard Ponsonby.'
Personally I think he is preparing for the inevitable Yes vote. It is 1998 all over again. Blame Tony Blair not David Cameron if Scotland votes Yes. Blair pressed the "start button".
Interesting that Sky News has been showing what may become the national flag of rUK ppost 2016. It is the Union Jack with all the blue background removed, a red cross and red diagonal cross on a white background.
O/T but I see the EU Parliament is holding a vote today on banning prostitution across the EU (they have no authority to impose such a ban).
They might as well vote to ban eating, sleeping, and breathing,
Well that rules out an accession treaty for The Ukraine.
It's also a stupid model, as the piece argues. The "Swedish model" isn't about what's best to protect sex workers, it's about demonising male punters while not doing the same for female prostitutes. It's the sort of right on politics you normally get at student unions.
Currency pegs to anything (gold, other currencies, etc.) fail in the event that the market exchange rate and the peg start to differ by a substantial amount.
In the case of currencies, this happens in situations where economies are not particularly entwined.
For Scotland and rUK, in the short-term at least, that would not be the case. Obviously, if Scotland pursued fiscally irresponsible policies, then it would become the case in time. Likewise, if we were irresponsible.
However, given the free movement of goods, services, etc., between Scotland and the rest of the UK there is no reason to expect that the prices of said goods and services would vary much in the short term.
For the record, there have been speculative attacks on government pegs throughout the history of finance. George Soros was hardly the first, merely the most famous. Lots of people made money on the breakup of Bretton Woods, for example - but they had to wait thirty years to make it (and lost a lot in the intervening period). The punt-pound peg was maintained too.
Actually, I'm pretty sure a sharp movement in the oil price would move the market exchange rate between the two countries quite substantially, and potentially in the short term.
As for speculative attacks on government pegs, I appreciate people have always done them, but it was only with 1980s financial deregulation that banks got big enough to have people being able to put huge amounts of money behind their bets sufficient to force government hands.
GO and DC have made speeches and taken on the issue - even if the Nats didn't like the message - not even the residents of Somerset could deny that.
Ed is nowhere on this - and he is the chap with the most to lose.
Frankly, from a selfish Labour perspective, I'm starting to think it's wise for Labour figures to steer clear of the campaign. Even if this uber-negative campaigning succeeds in getting the pro-union side the result they want in the referendum, there's a huge risk of it nonetheless toxifying anyone who was seen to "bully" Scotland. From Labour's perspective, they may as well let the Tories take care of it and let them take the reputational damage.
I don't see anyone being "bullied" - that's the complaint of the playground wimp. The Nats are merely being told the facts of life.
O/T but I see the EU Parliament is holding a vote today on banning prostitution across the EU (they have no authority to impose such a ban).
They might as well vote to ban eating, sleeping, and breathing,
Well that rules out an accession treaty for The Ukraine.
It's also a stupid model, as the piece argues. The "Swedish model" isn't about what's best to protect sex workers, it's about demonising male punters while not doing the same for female prostitutes. It's the sort of right on politics you normally get at student unions.
IMHO prostitution isn't in itself a problem (aside from the moral issues): if two (or more) consenting adults want to do kinky things to one another in exchange for cash, then so be it. It's not my kind of gig, but there you go.
The main problem is exploitation, either of prostitutes by clients, or of prostitutes by pimps. And this change will probably do f'all to stop that.
Then again, this is an area I have no direct knowledge of.
As for speculative attacks on government pegs, I appreciate people have always done them, but it was only with 1980s financial deregulation that banks got big enough to have people being able to put huge amounts of money behind their bets sufficient to force government hands.
I agree with you regarding the oil price. Clearly if oil went to $180, it would exert strong upward pressure on the Scottish pound, and at $60, it would go the other way.
However, I disagree with you regarding speculative attacks. When governments attempt to fix the price of anything, then the peg will only last as long as the peg is in-line with reality. What was unique about the EMU fiasco was that - instead of an army of small speculators making bets - it was one or two large (and very public ones).
The poster is living proof that the Tories don't get it. Yes Milliband is a millionaire - most major politicians are, and if you inherit a part share in a nice London house you can be a paper millionaire easily (unless Tories don't favour tax free inheritance now?)
But its not about where you come from, its what you do. The Tories have a problem with class, but even if John Major was PM again there is no way they are going to persuade normal people they are in touch with these policies. Similarly you can be a patrician and still connect to working people through policies they like - see Harold MacMillan.
Anyway, attack away Mr Green. You really couldn't make this up....
This is an error, if you are going to attack people for being millionaire PPE grads from Oxford you're on shaky ground already with DC in charge.
For ad hom attacks - better by far to attack Labour's weak link ED BALLS and his links to Gordon Brown. I note they have done this in a pretty decent poster already, this one is very weak in comparison.
I know you are convinced you'll win, but what interests me is what might happen in 2015 if you don't.
Could labour's abject performance over indie prompt a serious loss in seats to the SNP even if there were another UK full GE in 2015???
From a Scottish perspective, it's not just Messrs Miliband and Balls who are lining up with the Coalition. Ms Lamont (leader of the Scottish Labour MSPs) has been espousing Tory-like policies and doing down indy concerns as wee things, you know, the small change of politics, like Trident, social policy, bedroom tax etc. It may be because it is the only way to avoid agreeing with the SNP, who are centrist and therefore very definitely to the left of Labour, but it does mean it is positioning Labour leadership even closer to the Tories. A great deal will depend on how far the core Labour voter's patience is stretched versus the media hate campaign against indy and Mr Salmond.
Interesting that Sky News has been showing what may become the national flag of rUK ppost 2016. It is the Union Jack with all the blue background removed, a red cross and red diagonal cross on a white background.
The UK didn't change its flag after the departure of the Republic of Ireland, so why should it do so if Scotland left? It's a great piece of design, used far more widely than on flagpoles.
It would also give the Australians, New Zealanders and Hawaiians (among others) a headache if the UK changed its flag.
Or would the retention of the blue be seen as bullying by the oppressed Scots?
O/T but I see the EU Parliament is holding a vote today on banning prostitution across the EU (they have no authority to impose such a ban).
They might as well vote to ban eating, sleeping, and breathing,
Well that rules out an accession treaty for The Ukraine.
It's also a stupid model, as the piece argues. The "Swedish model" isn't about what's best to protect sex workers, it's about demonising male punters while not doing the same for female prostitutes. It's the sort of right on politics you normally get at student unions.
I think that any piece of legislation that starts from the premise that men who buy sex are abusers, and women who sell sex are victims, is bound to be bad and unjust legislation.
But, more fundamentally, if two consenting adults wish to exchange sex for cash, what business is it of the government to prevent them? Mary Honeyball and others who have argued for this legislation assert that paying for sex is morally wrong, and should therefore be banned, which is a very slippery slope.
'David Cameron would "absolutely" support an independent Scotland's application to join the European Union, he told STV Political Editor Bernard Ponsonby.'
Not particularly surprising. It reduces the potential for complications across the new border - Scotland can't impose high tariffs on English beer, and its farmers and fishermen have to follow the same regulations as the UKs.
Also, if an independent Scotland has to apply to join the EU, rather than inheriting the UK's membership, there'll need to be an accession treaty, which gives Cameron a small opportunity for renegotiation. He wouldn't be able to get his full wish list, but he might expect to win some morsels for his backbenchers.
Incidentally, whatever an independent Scotland's EU position, presumably the UK's fish quotas, contributions, etc would all change. Would they just go down in proportion to population/share of the sea/share of GDP, or would this be another opportunity for negotiation?
Interesting that Sky News has been showing what may become the national flag of rUK ppost 2016. It is the Union Jack with all the blue background removed, a red cross and red diagonal cross on a white background.
The UK didn't change its flag after the departure of the Republic of Ireland, so why should it do so if Scotland left? It's a great piece of design, used far more widely than on flagpoles.
It would also give the Australians, New Zealanders and Hawaiians (among others) a headache if the UK changed its flag.
Or would the retention of the blue be seen as bullying by the oppressed Scots?
I prefer the blue replaced by white and green as in the Welsh flag. But it's the wrong blue, so why worry? In any case, any country that can keep the French fleurs de lys on its Royal Standard for about 450 years after it lost Calais is not going to worry about keeping a little blue and saving everyone a lot of money.
O/T but I see the EU Parliament is holding a vote today on banning prostitution across the EU (they have no authority to impose such a ban).
They might as well vote to ban eating, sleeping, and breathing,
Well that rules out an accession treaty for The Ukraine.
It's also a stupid model, as the piece argues. The "Swedish model" isn't about what's best to protect sex workers, it's about demonising male punters while not doing the same for female prostitutes. It's the sort of right on politics you normally get at student unions.
I think that any piece of legislation that starts from the premise that men who buy sex are abusers, and women who sell sex are victims, is bound to be bad and unjust legislation.
But, more fundamentally, if two consenting adults wish to exchange sex for cash, what business is it of the government to prevent them? Mary Honeyball and others who have argued for this legislation assert that paying for sex is morally wrong, and should therefore be banned, which is a very slippery slope.
"I'd like a shag and a cup of tea". "Certainly, it's £50 for the tea, but the shag is free".
It's worth remembering that the punt and the pound remained pretty much at parity for a long-time post peg. When labour and capital and goods flow freely and the economies are pretty intertwined, prices will tend to move in lock-step. If a Scottish supplier put up its prices, its customers would buy from a rUK supplier instead. Around the border, people would simply shop wherever it would be cheaper, and that would tend to drive prices back towards parity.
Of course, that can change over time. But it does act as a serious discouragement to trying to break the 'peg'.
I cannot see the sense in the poster shown. There is lots to "attack" Red Ed on without referring to his wealth etc. However each time he bangs on about Tory toffs, the Tory media department should make clear the Labour front bench is just the same.
The winner of a personalised slag fest between Tory and Labour will be UKIP as people increasingly realise all the mainstream politicians are the same.
So hopefully Labour will resist the temptation to retaliate and let the response be viral. The Airbrushed for Change Cameron poster series became legend, and I've also enjoyed the destiny Milliband series
Incidentally, whatever an independent Scotland's EU position, presumably the UK's fish quotas, contributions, etc would all change. Would they just go down in proportion to population/share of the sea/share of GDP, or would this be another opportunity for negotiation?
Yes, that is an absolutely key point which lots of people (and not just the SNP) don't seem to be able to get their heads round, despite the fact that it is obvious if you give it a moment's thought. In practice, there would have to be intensive negotations to agree not only the status, and presumably terms of membership or associate membership, of the new applicant state, i.e. Scotland, but also any changes to the UK's relationship with our EU friends. To take one obvious example, what happens to the fishing grounds? If Scotland's application to join the EU hasn't been agreed, then on Independence Day the fishing grounds around Scotland leave the EU. Another example is the UK's budget/rebate deal: clearly that would have to change whether Scotland is immediately admitted to the EU or not.
It's inconceivable that this would not all be negotiated and whatever treaty changes or fudges set up before independence (though it might take longer than Salmond has allowed for). That does interact in an interesting way with the potential UK renegotiation and referendum. It's not at all obvious how it would all be re-jigged, since all sides would have some bargaining chips.
O/T but I see the EU Parliament is holding a vote today on banning prostitution across the EU (they have no authority to impose such a ban).
They might as well vote to ban eating, sleeping, and breathing,
Well that rules out an accession treaty for The Ukraine.
It's also a stupid model, as the piece argues. The "Swedish model" isn't about what's best to protect sex workers, it's about demonising male punters while not doing the same for female prostitutes. It's the sort of right on politics you normally get at student unions.
But, more fundamentally, if two consenting adults wish to exchange sex for cash, what business is it of the government to prevent them?
Nothing, but since study after study shows that the overwhelming proportion of prostitution takes place in conditions of significant coercion that isn't what we are dealing with. The idea that we should legislate for the ideal situation makes no sense to me, it seems perfectly reasonable to legislate with actual 'market conditions' in mind.
Just occurred to me that if Scotland becomes independent during Cameron's time in office, almost everything else he does or doesn't do will pale into insignificance by comparison.
His two sentence entry in the history books will mainly consist of a summary of how he presided over the break-up of the United Kingdom after 300 years.
Just occurred to me that if Scotland becomes independent during Cameron's time in office, almost everything else he does or doesn't do will pale into insignificance by comparison.
His two sentence entry in the history books will mainly consist of a summary of how he presided over the break-up of the United Kingdom after 300 years.
O/T but I see the EU Parliament is holding a vote today on banning prostitution across the EU (they have no authority to impose such a ban).
They might as well vote to ban eating, sleeping, and breathing,
Well that rules out an accession treaty for The Ukraine.
It's also a stupid model, as the piece argues. The "Swedish model" isn't about what's best to protect sex workers, it's about demonising male punters while not doing the same for female prostitutes. It's the sort of right on politics you normally get at student unions.
I think that any piece of legislation that starts from the premise that men who buy sex are abusers, and women who sell sex are victims, is bound to be bad and unjust legislation.
But, more fundamentally, if two consenting adults wish to exchange sex for cash, what business is it of the government to prevent them? Mary Honeyball and others who have argued for this legislation assert that paying for sex is morally wrong, and should therefore be banned, which is a very slippery slope.
"I'd like a shag and a cup of tea". "Certainly, it's £50 for the tea, but the shag is free".
It's not a brothel, it's a cafe with beds.
Your honour, she is a not prostitute, she's a condom seller and she was providing me with a free demonstration on how to use her product.
It's a crap poster. Take out the "Son of a Marxist" line and it could apply to any of our political elite.
Off topic, I've just had a nice letter from Mr Cameron, urging me to register for a postal vote for the Euros and beyond. I'm a bit miffed, do I look like a Tory pensioner?
Join the club. A prominent local Labour couple have had one (as well as an Xmas card from Cameron to the lady of the two, thanking her for her continuing support), and have eagerly used the replied-paid envelope to write off for PVs (how come they didn't do it before is what I want to know). Broxtowe Labour's party chair had a survey from the MP asking if she approved of her work. Broxtowe Labour's head of fund-raising had a 4-page spiel from the Tories praising her as a "hard-working family" and asking for donations.
The basic problem is that the Tories have run out of people to do the groundwork, so they rely on Experian and the like to spot likely Tories, plus some desultory phone canvassing. Nemesis will arrive when they try to do GOTV with their data.
I note that there will be a by-election for a new crossbencher hereditary peer following the death last week of Lord Moran. No date set as yet for the vote.
Interesting that Sky News has been showing what may become the national flag of rUK ppost 2016. It is the Union Jack with all the blue background removed, a red cross and red diagonal cross on a white background.
The UK didn't change its flag after the departure of the Republic of Ireland, so why should it do so if Scotland left? It's a great piece of design, used far more widely than on flagpoles.
It would also give the Australians, New Zealanders and Hawaiians (among others) a headache if the UK changed its flag.
Or would the retention of the blue be seen as bullying by the oppressed Scots?
I don't think for a second we Scots would care less what the national flag of rUK would be. However as the blue background in the current flag represents Scotland and was put there at the behest of the Scots king who had just become king of England, it would seem rather daft for rUK to retain a flag which didn't represent the country it had become. It would be a good opportunity for properly representing both Wales and NI on the RUK flag.
O/T but I see the EU Parliament is holding a vote today on banning prostitution across the EU (they have no authority to impose such a ban).
They might as well vote to ban eating, sleeping, and breathing,
Well that rules out an accession treaty for The Ukraine.
It's also a stupid model, as the piece argues. The "Swedish model" isn't about what's best to protect sex workers, it's about demonising male punters while not doing the same for female prostitutes. It's the sort of right on politics you normally get at student unions.
I think that any piece of legislation that starts from the premise that men who buy sex are abusers, and women who sell sex are victims, is bound to be bad and unjust legislation.
But, more fundamentally, if two consenting adults wish to exchange sex for cash, what business is it of the government to prevent them? Mary Honeyball and others who have argued for this legislation assert that paying for sex is morally wrong, and should therefore be banned, which is a very slippery slope.
"I'd like a shag and a cup of tea". "Certainly, it's £50 for the tea, but the shag is free".
It's not a brothel, it's a cafe with beds.
Or to quote from an UK escort agency website chosen at random - Surrey Escort Agency - the official disclaimer is:
Note: Any money paid to the adult escorts listed on this website is for their time and companionship only. Whatever else that may occur if and when contact is made is the choice of consenting adults
I note that there will be a by-election for a new crossbencher hereditary peer following the death last week of Lord Moran. No date set as yet for the vote.
Electing a hereditary peer? Are you sure about that?
I note that there will be a by-election for a new crossbencher hereditary peer following the death last week of Lord Moran. No date set as yet for the vote.
Electing a hereditary peer? Are you sure about that?
Yes, it has to be the strangest election in Britain:
I note that there will be a by-election for a new crossbencher hereditary peer following the death last week of Lord Moran. No date set as yet for the vote.
Electing a hereditary peer? Are you sure about that?
Yes, it has to be the strangest election in Britain:
I note that there will be a by-election for a new crossbencher hereditary peer following the death last week of Lord Moran. No date set as yet for the vote.
Electing a hereditary peer? Are you sure about that?
Yes, it has to be the strangest election in Britain:
Just occurred to me that if Scotland becomes independent during Cameron's time in office, almost everything else he does or doesn't do will pale into insignificance by comparison.
His two sentence entry in the history books will mainly consist of a summary of how he presided over the break-up of the United Kingdom after 300 years.
And when he dies they will find the word "Calais" engraved on his heart.
You may be right but these appeals to history are largely bollocks. Either people don't care about history, or they do care about history and recognise how very short a time 300 years is, sub specie aeternitatis.
We all know where this is going....wait for round the clock Daily Rant...Nazis...etc...
Very firm rebuttal from Harman et al - especially that of Dromey which is detailed and gives clear examples.
Embarrassing story for the Mail - as many Conservatives on here, such as Carlotta immediately recognised.
All credit to them.
This is an ancient story which I first read about decades ago.
No one, not even the Mail, is suggesting that Hewitt, Harman and Dromey, when acting as officers or employees of the National Council for Civil Liberties in the 1970s supported child abuse.
It is a matter of public record though that the NCCL made a submission in 1976 to a Parliamentary Committee on Criminal Law Revision which argued that:
"Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage… The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage".
The NCCL at the time also allowed organisations such as Paedophile Information Exchange (P.I.E.), a pro-paedophile activist group, to become its affiliates.
It is fitting and proper that both Harman and Dromey should now be issuing public statements which dissociate themselves personally from the policy errors made in the 1970s by an organisation with which they were closely associated.
The Labour Party is strengthened by the candid and clear statements made today.
Let's hope the Mail will now draw a line in the sand on the matter and lallow us all to move especially now that those who transgressed in their youths have learned the appropriate lessons.
I know you are convinced you'll win, but what interests me is what might happen in 2015 if you don't.
Could labour's abject performance over indie prompt a serious loss in seats to the SNP even if there were another UK full GE in 2015???
It is hard to tell what is going on , Lamont is only seen at FM Questions on a Thursday , has not been seen all year. Darling has had 3 or 4 30 second slots on TV all year again. It is hard to believe where we are in the cycle and they are completely missing. Lot of people very upset they are being poodles to the Tories.
The url explains the context. The key passage is as follows:
"from the end of the decade, union members – now rebadged as affiliated supporters – could hold huge clout in leadership elections.
But there is a big delay. For the next five years only new union members will be asked to sign up to Labour – with the switchover of everyone else only in 2019.
What that means is that if Ed Miliband loses the next election, or steps down for any other reason, the subsequent leadership contest would be an unprecedented one for Labour: because the unions would temporarily have almost no skin in the game.
Labour’s MPs, meanwhile, would no longer wield the equivalent of 600 votes each – and instead would be no more important than a single activist. Their only role would be in deciding the shortlist: any candidate would need at least 15 per cent of their signatures to proceed.
That suggests any contest within the next five years would be decided almost entirely by grassroots members.
They were the people who in 2010, you may remember, backed David Miliband far ahead of his younger brother.
With the unions neutralised there would be less support for certain candidates, for example Yvette Cooper or Rachel Reeves, that you might expect them to back.
Others, such as Chuka Umunna, Tristram Hunt or Gloria del Piero, who are not so popular with the general secretaries – but might have a wider popular appeal – could do rather better."
GO and DC have made speeches and taken on the issue - even if the Nats didn't like the message - not even the residents of Somerset could deny that.
Ed is nowhere on this - and he is the chap with the most to lose.
Frankly, from a selfish Labour perspective, I'm starting to think it's wise for Labour figures to steer clear of the campaign. Even if this uber-negative campaigning succeeds in getting the pro-union side the result they want in the referendum, there's a huge risk of it nonetheless toxifying anyone who was seen to "bully" Scotland. From Labour's perspective, they may as well let the Tories take care of it and let them take the reputational damage.
I don't see anyone being "bullied" - that's the complaint of the playground wimp. The Nats are merely being told the facts of life.
What you think is of little concern , it is how it is seen north of the border and there it is seen differently.
The url explains the context. The key passage is as follows:
"from the end of the decade, union members – now rebadged as affiliated supporters – could hold huge clout in leadership elections.
But there is a big delay. For the next five years only new union members will be asked to sign up to Labour – with the switchover of everyone else only in 2019.
What that means is that if Ed Miliband loses the next election, or steps down for any other reason, the subsequent leadership contest would be an unprecedented one for Labour: because the unions would temporarily have almost no skin in the game.
Labour’s MPs, meanwhile, would no longer wield the equivalent of 600 votes each – and instead would be no more important than a single activist. Their only role would be in deciding the shortlist: any candidate would need at least 15 per cent of their signatures to proceed.
That suggests any contest within the next five years would be decided almost entirely by grassroots members.
They were the people who in 2010, you may remember, backed David Miliband far ahead of his younger brother.
With the unions neutralised there would be less support for certain candidates, for example Yvette Cooper or Rachel Reeves, that you might expect them to back.
Others, such as Chuka Umunna, Tristram Hunt or Gloria del Piero, who are not so popular with the general secretaries – but might have a wider popular appeal – could do rather better."
Blairism is about as popular among the Labour grassroots as measles these days.
The real implications of these reforms on any future leadership contest is that MPs' power has been diluted. That tilts the odds towards grassroots darling Andy Burnham, away from Westminster bubble favourite Yvette Cooper.
I note that there will be a by-election for a new crossbencher hereditary peer following the death last week of Lord Moran. No date set as yet for the vote.
Electing a hereditary peer? Are you sure about that?
Yes, it has to be the strangest election in Britain:
Comments
BECAUSE IT HIGHLIGHTS THAT THESE ***** DON'T GIVE A **** ABOUT SCOTLAND AND CAN'T BE TRUSTED!
I am an enthusiastic Unionist. But then I pause a moment amidst all the bluster and think - so ok suppose there is a Yes vote. Scotland secedes, fair enough, it it's what they really want.
And then I think about the inevitable currency union which to all intents and purposes will look like DevoMax but without the Labour MPs and, much like an esteemed nationalist contributor here, I do allow myself a chortle.
Breitbart London @BreitbartLondon
Britain's Floods Were Engineered by Green Government Policy http://bit.ly/1k36FSR
as peoples' ideas should never be discarded out of hand just because of who they are
Problem there is that Clegg made a huge play of being the "no more broken promises" guy in 2010. It's one of the main reasons he is so toxic now. So if you start off defining who and what you are by what you are NOT, and then that gets smashed to pieces, it's little wonder that the public have no idea what the lib dems stand for now.
Now we get to see the spectacle of Clegg trying to define himself and the lib dems by not being Farage or the kippers. Problem there is that the lib dems are most certainly not uniform on their views of the EU now even if they ever were. So those banking on being pro-EU as the thing to get the lib dems away from flatlining on 10% since late 2010 might be in for quite a disappointment. Where it WILL work however is giving Farage huge publicity and thus boosting the kipper tory waverers and diminishing the tory vote in contested lib dem tory areas
On a tangent to that, the focus on personal life was one reason I started getting sick of that show The Good Wife. First couple of seasons of course it made sense that so much focus would be paid to the wife and the relationship, given the husband had cheated on her, but by the fourth season, in a lame attempt to maintain the original premise which had long since moved on, hearing characters over and over again go 'It is imperative the wife does x/y if you are to win' just seemed so improbable. Like, I'm sure the wife's views would be important given that personal history, but to play it like it was the key thing in every political act? Come on.
Ok, rant over.
'BECAUSE IT HIGHLIGHTS THAT THESE ***** DON'T GIVE A **** ABOUT SCOTLAND AND CAN'T BE TRUSTED!'
When your in a hole give the shovel a rest.
Pure comedy gold from the Highland league.
Should Scotland become independent, I think it is almost inevitable they will chose to have their own currency, but peg it to the British Pound. In this way, they will copy the Irish post independence, and Hong Kong, whose currency is pegged to the US Dollar.
There are questions on here about Scotland's financial services industry under such a scenario. I think those questions are misplaced. In the event that Scotland became independent, the British PLC, Royal Bank of Scotland would remain a British PLC. They would probably make their London corporate office the official headquarters. Given that only a small portion of RBS's asset base is in Scotland, they would be crazy to do otherwise. The same is true of almost all Scottish finance companies, with the exception of the asset management industry.
Under this scenario, RBS Group PLC would be a British public company, and Scottish activities would be carried out by a much smaller RBS Banking (Scotland) Ltd subsidiary. In this way, RBS would avoid the risk of being too big to be bailed out by the British tax payer. It would also minimise currency translation risks.
Of course, Scotland would be at the mercy of the Bank of England's monetary policy. However, because the peg could be broken, and all new debts would be denominated in Scottish pounds, they would have a get out in the event things went truly tits up. (I.e. they could break the peg and print new Scottish pounds to pay off their debts.)
Problem there is that Clegg made a huge play of being the "no more broken promises" guy in 2010. It's one of the main reasons he is so toxic now. So if you start off defining yourself as who and what you are by what you are NOT, and then that gets smashed to pieces, it's little wonder that the public have no idea what the lib dems stand for now.
Now we get to see the spectacle of Clegg trying to define himself and the lib dems by not being Farage or the kippers. Problem there is that the lib dems are most certainly not uniform on their views of the EU now even if they ever were. So those banking on being pro-EU as the thing to get the lib dems away from flatlining on 10% since late 2010 might be in for quite a disappointment. Where it WILL work however is giving Farage huge publicity and thus boosting the kipper tory waverers and diminishing the tory vote in contested lib dem tory areas.
Not saying past statements and actions should not inform how we interpret someone's ideas of course, but I stil maintain the Clegg toxicity is overblown, in part because Labour and the Tories will so desperately wish for the LDs to be much diminished, as from their perspective all the LDs are are an impedient to gaining a majority.
Hadn't considered the last part about diminishing the Tory vote - definitely worth a shot I guess. I tend to think of the UKIP vote as pretty solid by this point, but for a Euopean election I guess there's still a chance proper Tories will be willing to cross over on this occasion.
Whether it’s overall a good idea or not, however, independence would have to rest on a sound monetary foundation. And the independence movement has me worried, because what it has said on that that crucial subject seems deeply muddle-headed.
What the independence movement says is that there’s no problem — Scotland will simply stay on the pound. That is, however, much more problematic than they seem to realize.
It’s true, as pointed out here, that England, I mean the rump UK, I mean continuing Britain, whatever, can’t prevent the Scots from using the pound, just as the United States can’t stop Ecuador from using dollars. But the lesson of the euro crisis, surely, is that sharing a common currency without having a shared federal government is very dangerous.
In fact, Scotland-on-the-pound would be in even worse shape than the euro countries, because the Bank of England would be under no obligation to act as lender of last resort to Scottish banks — that is, it would arguably take even less responsibility for local financial stability than the pre-Draghi ECB. And it would fall very far short of the post-Draghi ECB, which has in effect taken on the role of lender of last resort to eurozone governments, too.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/scots-wha-hae/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body
I find it impossible to hero worship a politician, unlike the Nats for whom it is clearly a religion.
Made me feel like a bit of a throwback.
I wonder if labour's cause is damaged in Scotland even if there's a no vote, after the way Milli decided to jump with the hated tories on currency union.
The nats on the site don;t seem to think so, though.
Secondly, and sadly for the anti-green brigade, 'green' policies such as SuDS may be part of the answer going forwards, as may planting more trees.
He does make a good point in the fact that the RSPB have got questions to answer in this ...
I don't have a tablet, smartphone or smartwatch, so I'd probably use a similar sort of guide. Then again, I'm about as old-fashioned as it's possible to be with such gadgetry whilst still publishing stuff online. I think my Kindle is the only thing that could be considered a gadget (and that has ye olde keyboard).
PB Tory logic at it's finest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png
Those drops from the tories and labour are what Clegg is banking on since he knows the chances of significantly shifting the lib dem vote from where it's been flatlining since late 2010 are somewhat unlikely.
CNN axes Piers Morgan.
Perhaps he will now apply for the England No 5 batsman slot?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho-IwBKeXfk&
O/T but I see the EU Parliament is holding a vote today on banning prostitution across the EU (they have no authority to impose such a ban).
They might as well vote to ban eating, sleeping, and breathing,
Thanks Carnyx. It seems to me that from a Scottish perspective Milliband has shown where his loyalites really are. In ruling out currency union he has in effect put English marginals over Scottish heartlands.
But then I don;t pretend to know Scottish politics.
In the case of currencies, this happens in situations where economies are not particularly entwined.
For Scotland and rUK, in the short-term at least, that would not be the case. Obviously, if Scotland pursued fiscally irresponsible policies, then it would become the case in time. Likewise, if we were irresponsible.
However, given the free movement of goods, services, etc., between Scotland and the rest of the UK there is no reason to expect that the prices of said goods and services would vary much in the short term.
For the record, there have been speculative attacks on government pegs throughout the history of finance. George Soros was hardly the first, merely the most famous. Lots of people made money on the breakup of Bretton Woods, for example - but they had to wait thirty years to make it (and lost a lot in the intervening period). The punt-pound peg was maintained too.
The Unionists may be stamping their feet but you need the Nats to start clicking for your Flamenco analogy to work.
'David Cameron would "absolutely" support an independent Scotland's application to join the European Union, he told STV Political Editor Bernard Ponsonby.'
http://tinyurl.com/no426yg
His father in law is a mere baronet.
(a) maybe he judges Yes might win , so he is getting ready for the blame game south of the border, and/or
(bi) he thinks the Labour tribal vote will still hold up for the referendum and get a No despite his and Mr Balls' siding with the Tories, in which case we get the implication
(bii) that he thinks he needs to put more effort into getting DM readers in the southern suburbs and White Van Persons than in getting out the Scottish tribal vote in the 2015 UKGE.
It is perhaps relevant that playing with Electoral Calculus suggests that the SNP need to get about 5 percentage points over Labour before they start to get more MP seats than Labour. If I were Mr M, I'd be worried about some recent polls - but by no means all. And early days yet
Off topic, I've just had a nice letter from Mr Cameron, urging me to register for a postal vote for the Euros and beyond. I'm a bit miffed, do I look like a Tory pensioner?
V interesting Malcolm G.
I know you are convinced you'll win, but what interests me is what might happen in 2015 if you don't.
Could labour's abject performance over indie prompt a serious loss in seats to the SNP even if there were another UK full GE in 2015???
As for speculative attacks on government pegs, I appreciate people have always done them, but it was only with 1980s financial deregulation that banks got big enough to have people being able to put huge amounts of money behind their bets sufficient to force government hands.
The main problem is exploitation, either of prostitutes by clients, or of prostitutes by pimps. And this change will probably do f'all to stop that.
Then again, this is an area I have no direct knowledge of.
However, I disagree with you regarding speculative attacks. When governments attempt to fix the price of anything, then the peg will only last as long as the peg is in-line with reality. What was unique about the EMU fiasco was that - instead of an army of small speculators making bets - it was one or two large (and very public ones).
But its not about where you come from, its what you do. The Tories have a problem with class, but even if John Major was PM again there is no way they are going to persuade normal people they are in touch with these policies. Similarly you can be a patrician and still connect to working people through policies they like - see Harold MacMillan.
Anyway, attack away Mr Green. You really couldn't make this up....
For ad hom attacks - better by far to attack Labour's weak link ED BALLS and his links to Gordon Brown. I note they have done this in a pretty decent poster already, this one is very weak in comparison.
It would also give the Australians, New Zealanders and Hawaiians (among others) a headache if the UK changed its flag.
Or would the retention of the blue be seen as bullying by the oppressed Scots?
But, more fundamentally, if two consenting adults wish to exchange sex for cash, what business is it of the government to prevent them? Mary Honeyball and others who have argued for this legislation assert that paying for sex is morally wrong, and should therefore be banned, which is a very slippery slope.
Also, if an independent Scotland has to apply to join the EU, rather than inheriting the UK's membership, there'll need to be an accession treaty, which gives Cameron a small opportunity for renegotiation. He wouldn't be able to get his full wish list, but he might expect to win some morsels for his backbenchers.
Incidentally, whatever an independent Scotland's EU position, presumably the UK's fish quotas, contributions, etc would all change. Would they just go down in proportion to population/share of the sea/share of GDP, or would this be another opportunity for negotiation?
Harriet Harman condemns paper's 'smear campaign'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26320942
We all know where this is going....wait for round the clock Daily Rant...Nazis...etc...
"Certainly, it's £50 for the tea, but the shag is free".
It's not a brothel, it's a cafe with beds.
Of course, that can change over time. But it does act as a serious discouragement to trying to break the 'peg'.
So hopefully Labour will resist the temptation to retaliate and let the response be viral. The Airbrushed for Change Cameron poster series became legend, and I've also enjoyed the destiny Milliband series
It's inconceivable that this would not all be negotiated and whatever treaty changes or fudges set up before independence (though it might take longer than Salmond has allowed for). That does interact in an interesting way with the potential UK renegotiation and referendum. It's not at all obvious how it would all be re-jigged, since all sides would have some bargaining chips.
His two sentence entry in the history books will mainly consist of a summary of how he presided over the break-up of the United Kingdom after 300 years.
The basic problem is that the Tories have run out of people to do the groundwork, so they rely on Experian and the like to spot likely Tories, plus some desultory phone canvassing. Nemesis will arrive when they try to do GOTV with their data.
Embarrassing story for the Mail - as many Conservatives on here, such as Carlotta immediately recognised.
All credit to them.
Note: Any money paid to the adult escorts listed on this website is for their time and companionship only. Whatever else that may occur if and when contact is made is the choice of consenting adults
Oh the webs we weave when we practice to deceive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By-elections_to_the_House_of_Lords
And it's done by the Alternative Vote!
That's less bizarre. But still bizarre.
Which is the superior electoral voting system?
You may be right but these appeals to history are largely bollocks. Either people don't care about history, or they do care about history and recognise how very short a time 300 years is, sub specie aeternitatis.
No one, not even the Mail, is suggesting that Hewitt, Harman and Dromey, when acting as officers or employees of the National Council for Civil Liberties in the 1970s supported child abuse.
It is a matter of public record though that the NCCL made a submission in 1976 to a Parliamentary Committee on Criminal Law Revision which argued that:
"Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage… The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage".
The NCCL at the time also allowed organisations such as Paedophile Information Exchange (P.I.E.), a pro-paedophile activist group, to become its affiliates.
It is fitting and proper that both Harman and Dromey should now be issuing public statements which dissociate themselves personally from the policy errors made in the 1970s by an organisation with which they were closely associated.
The Labour Party is strengthened by the candid and clear statements made today.
Let's hope the Mail will now draw a line in the sand on the matter and lallow us all to move especially now that those who transgressed in their youths have learned the appropriate lessons.
http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2014/02/why-labours-next-leader-is-likely-to-be-a-blairite/
The url explains the context. The key passage is as follows:
"from the end of the decade, union members – now rebadged as affiliated supporters – could hold huge clout in leadership elections.
But there is a big delay. For the next five years only new union members will be asked to sign up to Labour – with the switchover of everyone else only in 2019.
What that means is that if Ed Miliband loses the next election, or steps down for any other reason, the subsequent leadership contest would be an unprecedented one for Labour: because the unions would temporarily have almost no skin in the game.
Labour’s MPs, meanwhile, would no longer wield the equivalent of 600 votes each – and instead would be no more important than a single activist. Their only role would be in deciding the shortlist: any candidate would need at least 15 per cent of their signatures to proceed.
That suggests any contest within the next five years would be decided almost entirely by grassroots members.
They were the people who in 2010, you may remember, backed David Miliband far ahead of his younger brother.
With the unions neutralised there would be less support for certain candidates, for example Yvette Cooper or Rachel Reeves, that you might expect them to back.
Others, such as Chuka Umunna, Tristram Hunt or Gloria del Piero, who are not so popular with the general secretaries – but might have a wider popular appeal – could do rather better."
Animal House and Groundhog Day remain two of my favourite comedy films.
The real implications of these reforms on any future leadership contest is that MPs' power has been diluted. That tilts the odds towards grassroots darling Andy Burnham, away from Westminster bubble favourite Yvette Cooper.
If you only watched the BBC for news you would think 'What the f**k is this all about?"