Setting the scene for next Thursday’s local elections – politicalbetting.com

MrEd said:

Foss said:

CarlottaVance said:

Well....

France does not seem to be in a happy place at the moment.

Concerning French polling 1/3:

• In certain towns and districts the laws of the Republic are not applied — 86%

• In France, violence grows day by day — 84%

• In Francs, there exists a form of antiracism that exacerbates hate between communities — 74% pic.twitter.com/IjiLcrgsH3

— Ben Judah (@b_judah) April 30, 2021

Concerning French polling 2/3:

• French society is disintegrating — 73%

• In asking the police and the gendarmerie to interview during the Gilet Jaune protests, the government has provoked a loss of confidence in law enforcement — 62% pic.twitter.com/ovQUOL4ZUr

— Ben Judah (@b_judah) April 30, 2021

Cornering French polling 3/3:

• The army should intervene without being given an order to guarantee order and security in France — 49%

• France will soon know a civil war — 45% pic.twitter.com/2NnuDTTSQp

— Ben Judah (@b_judah) April 30, 2021

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Foxy said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Leon said:

CarlottaVance said:

Leon said:

Who gets Bermuda?

Nobody in the UK.

It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.

We should make it a constituent part of the UK

After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.

Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.

Do it, Boris

Reclaim Heligoland!

Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.

We swapped it for Zanzibar didn't we?

Yes, and in the process screwing the Heligolanders royally.

MrEd said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MrEd said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MrEd said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Leon said:

CarlottaVance said:

Leon said:

Who gets Bermuda?

Nobody in the UK.

It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.

We should make it a constituent part of the UK

After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.

Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.

Do it, Boris

Reclaim Heligoland!

Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.

Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).

Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.

But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.

It would have been a major headache for the Germans. Given the tensions pre-WW 1, it is likely that the UK would have turned Heligoland into a major fortress and naval base, as the Germans did in WW1. Given this was pre-air power days, that would have left the Germans with the alternative of either leaving it there (thus across their shipping lanes) or trying to get the High Seas Fleet to blast it into submission, with all the obvious risks there, including a major battle with the Grand Fleet.

A snippet on how powerful Heligoland was as a fortress:

"Under the German Empire, the islands became a major naval base, and during the First World War the civilian population was evacuated to the mainland. The island was fortified with concrete gun emplacements along its cliffs similar to the Rock of Gibraltar. Island defences included 364 mounted guns including 142 42-centimetre (17 in) disappearing guns overlooking shipping channels defended with ten rows of naval mines."

Yes. Yet another triumph of Conservative foreign policy.

Well, certainly a bit short-sighted although nobody thought Germany would threaten the UK at that point. Russia and France were seen as the bigger issues

Thus similar to the foresight shown in the 20th century by Tory PMs Baldwin & Chamberlain.

Too early to tell re: 21st century. But a queasy feeling comes over me stealing . . .

Or it might be argued the Wilson Government in deciding to pull out of the Persian Gulf (yes, it was 1971 and Heath but it was Healey and Wilson who made the announcement in 1968).

Imagine what the world would have looked like if we had stayed there. For a start, the OPEC oil boycotts in 1973 and beyond probably wouldn't have happened or would have been diminished in power by Britain effectively having a hold on the Gulf. There is a decent chance the Iranian revolution wouldn't have happened because the Shah would not have embarked on his spending spree on the military. Iraq would have been kept in its place.

If you want an awful foreign policy decision, that is very much up there.

MattW said:

Sorry - ran out of time.

And why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap? The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal force, so such a blockade would have been very difficult. Plus minefields.

Stat: 10% of the concrete used on the Atlantic Wall by Twitler was in the Channel Islands.

dixiedean said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Lin Wood Shares Post Claiming Joe Biden is Dead, Trump Still in White House

https://www.newsweek.com/lin-wood-trump-white-house-biden-dead-qanon-1587710

Suggests there could be some awesome primaries in store.
I mean that in the original sense.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MattW said:

Sorry - ran out of time.

And why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap? The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal force, so such a blockade would have been very difficult. Plus minefields.

Stat: 10% of the concrete used on the Atlantic Wall by Twitler was in the Channel Islands.

Don't think that made possession of Heligoland LESS important. Still a huge strategic factor however you sliced it.

Re: WWI U-boats, their main base IIRC was Zeebrugge on Belgian coast.

Re: WWII concreting of Channel Islands, tremendous contribution to the war effort - the ALLIED war effort!

Pulpstar said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Ministers have urged a family facing a devastating bill as part of the building safety crisis to contact the Samaritans if they want help with “feelings of distress or despair”.

In a move that sparked “disbelief” in the leaseholder involved, Jamie Robb, the response from an aide to the housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, to a plea for help with fire remediation works included the phone number for the suicide prevention service. It recommended its “free, anonymous, confidential and non-judgemental support”.

The Robb family wrote to Jenrick in November last year after Jamie Robb, 30, discovered he was facing a bill of up to £40,000 for fire safety repairs on his apartment in a Manchester high-rise.

The response arrived this week as the government pushed through fire safety legislation that leaves thousands of leaseholders facing bills of up to £75,000 each to fix apartment buildings found to be dangerous in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire. “The government is aware of the effect that ongoing building safety concerns may have on the mental health of residents … If you feel able to, you can discuss any difficulties with your GP who will be able to signpost you to suitable healthcare services, if appropriate. You can also access support from the Samaritans by calling freephone 116 123”.

Seems like a good sensitive thing to do if people are having mental health issues.

I think I'd have a severe mental health issue if I was facing a 40 grand bill out the blue.

Charles said:

Pulpstar said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Ministers have urged a family facing a devastating bill as part of the building safety crisis to contact the Samaritans if they want help with “feelings of distress or despair”.

In a move that sparked “disbelief” in the leaseholder involved, Jamie Robb, the response from an aide to the housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, to a plea for help with fire remediation works included the phone number for the suicide prevention service. It recommended its “free, anonymous, confidential and non-judgemental support”.

The Robb family wrote to Jenrick in November last year after Jamie Robb, 30, discovered he was facing a bill of up to £40,000 for fire safety repairs on his apartment in a Manchester high-rise.

The response arrived this week as the government pushed through fire safety legislation that leaves thousands of leaseholders facing bills of up to £75,000 each to fix apartment buildings found to be dangerous in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire. “The government is aware of the effect that ongoing building safety concerns may have on the mental health of residents … If you feel able to, you can discuss any difficulties with your GP who will be able to signpost you to suitable healthcare services, if appropriate. You can also access support from the Samaritans by calling freephone 116 123”.

Seems like a good sensitive thing to do if people are having mental health issues.

I think I'd have a severe mental health issue if I was facing a 40 grand bill out the blue.

I’m still pissed about how much George Osborne gouged me for when I bought my house

Charles said:

Pulpstar said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Ministers have urged a family facing a devastating bill as part of the building safety crisis to contact the Samaritans if they want help with “feelings of distress or despair”.

In a move that sparked “disbelief” in the leaseholder involved, Jamie Robb, the response from an aide to the housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, to a plea for help with fire remediation works included the phone number for the suicide prevention service. It recommended its “free, anonymous, confidential and non-judgemental support”.

The Robb family wrote to Jenrick in November last year after Jamie Robb, 30, discovered he was facing a bill of up to £40,000 for fire safety repairs on his apartment in a Manchester high-rise.

The response arrived this week as the government pushed through fire safety legislation that leaves thousands of leaseholders facing bills of up to £75,000 each to fix apartment buildings found to be dangerous in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire. “The government is aware of the effect that ongoing building safety concerns may have on the mental health of residents … If you feel able to, you can discuss any difficulties with your GP who will be able to signpost you to suitable healthcare services, if appropriate. You can also access support from the Samaritans by calling freephone 116 123”.

Seems like a good sensitive thing to do if people are having mental health issues.

I think I'd have a severe mental health issue if I was facing a 40 grand bill out the blue.

I’m still pissed about how much George Osborne gouged me for when I bought my house

MrEd said:

MattW said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Leon said:

CarlottaVance said:

Leon said:

Who gets Bermuda?

Nobody in the UK.

It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.

We should make it a constituent part of the UK

After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.

Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.

Do it, Boris

Reclaim Heligoland!

Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.

Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).

Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.

But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.

Heligoland.

Can anyone explain how we would defend it in WW1?

Or why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap. The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal blockage would have been difficult. Plus minefields.

I'd say it was like the Channel Islands in WW2. In practice huge resources were wasted on it by the Germans, which caused little problem for the UK.

It's fairly simple (and that's not meant to be disrespectful).

First the analogy with the Channel Islands is false because of one critical difference, namely air power. The Channel Islands could not be defended because any British naval support force would have been subjected to massive German n airpower operating from occupied France. It would have been pulverised and the RAF would have faced the opposite of the Battle of Britain i.e. shot down pilots would have been difficult to recover. In WW 1, airpower was very limited. Sure, the Germans could have sent over Zeppilins but they would have had limited impact and would have been vulnerable.

Second, Germany did not have a major U-boat fleet at the start of WW 1 and, in any event, coming out of ports like Whiliemshaven would have been vulnerable to the sea lanes being mined.

Third, and also a major factor, the Grand Fleet was bigger than the High Seas Fleet.

Look at what happened at the Battle of Heligoland Blight. The British came over, sank several light cruisers and then buggered off. The Germans couldn't do anything about it.

Charles said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Nigelb said:

Best cricket comment I’ve seen this year.

https://twitter.com/RoyChaudhuri/status/1388093905854418945
I know nothing about cricket, but had a fantastic time watching a Test at Edgbaston. It's mainly an excuse to sit in the sunshine and drink all day. Also, the people sat next to us offered us some pâté, which never happens at the football...

"the people sat next to us offered us some pâté, which never happens at the football..."

Check out the tailgating in the parking lots of US football stadiums. Esp. college football in the South and other places where the locals are SERIOUS about their cooking.

Personally recommend LSU games at Tiger Stadium, Baton Rouge.

You may have to bring your own pâté, but guarantee you can swap it for some andouille!

Try the Easter Monday point to point at Hackwood Park or the celebration of George III’s birthday at Windsor for really superior tailgating parties

Carnyx said:

MaxPB said:

Carnyx said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

TimT said:

Alistair said:

felix said:

Alistair said:

A Nigerian qualifies for a UK state pension having worked in London for 30 years and has recently retired and moved to Edinburgh.

Scotland becomes independent.

Who pays his future pension liability?

Who pays if he then moves to New York?

That would depend entirely on his status if he became a Scottish citizen it would be Scotland , etc, etc

No, he's a Nigerian. Who is eligible for and receives a UK state pension due to his years of qualifying NIC payments. He is neither a Scottish nor British citizen.

Who pays his UK state pension?

As I said earlier, this is an obligation jointly assumed by all current UK citizens. The provenance going forward of jointly assumed obligations will no doubt be part of the complex divorce negotiations. It is naive to assume that all such jointly assumed obligations will be left entirely to rUK.

This is the crucial point. It's not the case that - if one part of the UK splits off - that it keeps its share of the assets but loses the liabilities.

The reality is that it would be a part of the negotiation, just as pensions for Eurocrats were part of the negotiations between the EU and the UK.

But the precedent is that the departing state took on the liabilities, which was fair. I don't see any scenario where the UK government continues to pay pensions for Scottish citizens after independence. It really does become their problem.

Unless the pensioner has dual nationality, though that would be limited to people with an English parent I imagine.

Even then, I expect dual national to need England/Wales/NI residency to qualify. I think anyone voting for independence should come to terms with these simple facts. You should still do it anyway, but don't vote to leave the UK on the basis that the UK will continue to fund and independent Scotland in any way. Any party that proposes this will simply get voted out and any party which promises to end any legacy payments immediately and permanently will win.

So you are demanding to treay rUK nationals like terrorists just because they happen to live in Scotland?

You really do need to wind your neck in.

rottenborough said:

James Melville Cherry blossom
@JamesMelville
·
4h
The Tories now have a 19-point lead over Labour with working class voters. Something has gone badly wrong here. The current messaging from the left simply doesn’t resonate with normal decent working class people. It’s so frustrating.

dixiedean said:

This Poots guy may well have the traits and views ascribed by Green Machine.
Plenty do.
BUT. He is also a Young Earth Creationist.
He literally believes the Earth is barely 6 000 years old.
What a shining example of a dynamic, forward looking UK that would be were he to be First Minister.

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

MaxPB said:

Carnyx said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

TimT said:

Alistair said:

felix said:

Alistair said:

A Nigerian qualifies for a UK state pension having worked in London for 30 years and has recently retired and moved to Edinburgh.

Scotland becomes independent.

Who pays his future pension liability?

Who pays if he then moves to New York?

That would depend entirely on his status if he became a Scottish citizen it would be Scotland , etc, etc

No, he's a Nigerian. Who is eligible for and receives a UK state pension due to his years of qualifying NIC payments. He is neither a Scottish nor British citizen.

Who pays his UK state pension?

As I said earlier, this is an obligation jointly assumed by all current UK citizens. The provenance going forward of jointly assumed obligations will no doubt be part of the complex divorce negotiations. It is naive to assume that all such jointly assumed obligations will be left entirely to rUK.

This is the crucial point. It's not the case that - if one part of the UK splits off - that it keeps its share of the assets but loses the liabilities.

The reality is that it would be a part of the negotiation, just as pensions for Eurocrats were part of the negotiations between the EU and the UK.

But the precedent is that the departing state took on the liabilities, which was fair. I don't see any scenario where the UK government continues to pay pensions for Scottish citizens after independence. It really does become their problem.

Unless the pensioner has dual nationality, though that would be limited to people with an English parent I imagine.

Even then, I expect dual national to need England/Wales/NI residency to qualify. I think anyone voting for independence should come to terms with these simple facts. You should still do it anyway, but don't vote to leave the UK on the basis that the UK will continue to fund and independent Scotland in any way. Any party that proposes this will simply get voted out and any party which promises to end any legacy payments immediately and permanently will win.

So you are demanding to treay rUK nationals like terrorists just because they happen to live in Scotland?

You really do need to wind your neck in.

Just how exactly would that be treating rUK nationals like terrorists? He's talking about the people that won't be UK citizens, i.e. the vast majority of them. Countries tend not to go around paying the pensions of people from elsewhere.

MrEd said:

rottenborough said:

James Melville Cherry blossom
@JamesMelville
·
4h
The Tories now have a 19-point lead over Labour with working class voters. Something has gone badly wrong here. The current messaging from the left simply doesn’t resonate with normal decent working class people. It’s so frustrating.

While many on here will disagree, Labour gives the impression of hating the values of many working class voters, and despising those voters. Why would anyone vote for someone that openly shows their contempt for you?

MrEd said:

rottenborough said:

James Melville Cherry blossom
@JamesMelville
·
4h
The Tories now have a 19-point lead over Labour with working class voters. Something has gone badly wrong here. The current messaging from the left simply doesn’t resonate with normal decent working class people. It’s so frustrating.

While many on here will disagree, Labour gives the impression of hating the values of many working class voters, and despising those voters. Why would anyone vote for someone that openly shows their contempt for you?

Carnyx said:

MrEd said:

MattW said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Leon said:

CarlottaVance said:

Leon said:

Who gets Bermuda?

Nobody in the UK.

It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.

We should make it a constituent part of the UK

After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.

Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.

Do it, Boris

Reclaim Heligoland!

Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.

Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).

Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.

But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.

Heligoland.

Can anyone explain how we would defend it in WW1?

Or why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap. The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal blockage would have been difficult. Plus minefields.

I'd say it was like the Channel Islands in WW2. In practice huge resources were wasted on it by the Germans, which caused little problem for the UK.

It's fairly simple (and that's not meant to be disrespectful).

First the analogy with the Channel Islands is false because of one critical difference, namely air power. The Channel Islands could not be defended because any British naval support force would have been subjected to massive German n airpower operating from occupied France. It would have been pulverised and the RAF would have faced the opposite of the Battle of Britain i.e. shot down pilots would have been difficult to recover. In WW 1, airpower was very limited. Sure, the Germans could have sent over Zeppilins but they would have had limited impact and would have been vulnerable.

Second, Germany did not have a major U-boat fleet at the start of WW 1 and, in any event, coming out of ports like Whiliemshaven would have been vulnerable to the sea lanes being mined.

Third, and also a major factor, the Grand Fleet was bigger than the High Seas Fleet.

Look at what happened at the Battle of Heligoland Blight. The British came over, sank several light cruisers and then buggered off. The Germans couldn't do anything about it.

I think the point is "buggered off". No close blockade with the U-boats and mines. Not like 1793-1814.

Carnyx said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

MaxPB said:

Carnyx said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

TimT said:

Alistair said:

felix said:

Alistair said:

A Nigerian qualifies for a UK state pension having worked in London for 30 years and has recently retired and moved to Edinburgh.

Scotland becomes independent.

Who pays his future pension liability?

Who pays if he then moves to New York?

That would depend entirely on his status if he became a Scottish citizen it would be Scotland , etc, etc

No, he's a Nigerian. Who is eligible for and receives a UK state pension due to his years of qualifying NIC payments. He is neither a Scottish nor British citizen.

Who pays his UK state pension?

As I said earlier, this is an obligation jointly assumed by all current UK citizens. The provenance going forward of jointly assumed obligations will no doubt be part of the complex divorce negotiations. It is naive to assume that all such jointly assumed obligations will be left entirely to rUK.

This is the crucial point. It's not the case that - if one part of the UK splits off - that it keeps its share of the assets but loses the liabilities.

The reality is that it would be a part of the negotiation, just as pensions for Eurocrats were part of the negotiations between the EU and the UK.

But the precedent is that the departing state took on the liabilities, which was fair. I don't see any scenario where the UK government continues to pay pensions for Scottish citizens after independence. It really does become their problem.

Unless the pensioner has dual nationality, though that would be limited to people with an English parent I imagine.

Even then, I expect dual national to need England/Wales/NI residency to qualify. I think anyone voting for independence should come to terms with these simple facts. You should still do it anyway, but don't vote to leave the UK on the basis that the UK will continue to fund and independent Scotland in any way. Any party that proposes this will simply get voted out and any party which promises to end any legacy payments immediately and permanently will win.

So you are demanding to treay rUK nationals like terrorists just because they happen to live in Scotland?

You really do need to wind your neck in.

Just how exactly would that be treating rUK nationals like terrorists? He's talking about the people that won't be UK citizens, i.e. the vast majority of them. Countries tend not to go around paying the pensions of people from elsewhere.

I'm actually EXCLUDING these who aren't rUK citizens - most of the people in Scotland - as I did earlier today.

There are peoiple who will still be rUK subjects with accrued pension rights.

There are people on PB today demanding that these people lose their pensions rights for living in Scotland.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Carnyx said:

MrEd said:

MattW said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Leon said:

CarlottaVance said:

Leon said:

Who gets Bermuda?

Nobody in the UK.

It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.

We should make it a constituent part of the UK

After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.

Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.

Do it, Boris

Reclaim Heligoland!

Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.

Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).

Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.

But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.

Heligoland.

Can anyone explain how we would defend it in WW1?

Or why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap. The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal blockage would have been difficult. Plus minefields.

I'd say it was like the Channel Islands in WW2. In practice huge resources were wasted on it by the Germans, which caused little problem for the UK.

It's fairly simple (and that's not meant to be disrespectful).

First the analogy with the Channel Islands is false because of one critical difference, namely air power. The Channel Islands could not be defended because any British naval support force would have been subjected to massive German n airpower operating from occupied France. It would have been pulverised and the RAF would have faced the opposite of the Battle of Britain i.e. shot down pilots would have been difficult to recover. In WW 1, airpower was very limited. Sure, the Germans could have sent over Zeppilins but they would have had limited impact and would have been vulnerable.

Second, Germany did not have a major U-boat fleet at the start of WW 1 and, in any event, coming out of ports like Whiliemshaven would have been vulnerable to the sea lanes being mined.

Third, and also a major factor, the Grand Fleet was bigger than the High Seas Fleet.

Look at what happened at the Battle of Heligoland Blight. The British came over, sank several light cruisers and then buggered off. The Germans couldn't do anything about it.

I think the point is "buggered off". No close blockade with the U-boats and mines. Not like 1793-1814.

How many times did the German Navy shell Whitby, Hartlepool and Scarborough AFTER the initial raids of 1914?

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

MaxPB said:

Carnyx said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

TimT said:

Alistair said:

felix said:

Alistair said:

A Nigerian qualifies for a UK state pension having worked in London for 30 years and has recently retired and moved to Edinburgh.

Scotland becomes independent.

Who pays his future pension liability?

Who pays if he then moves to New York?

That would depend entirely on his status if he became a Scottish citizen it would be Scotland , etc, etc

No, he's a Nigerian. Who is eligible for and receives a UK state pension due to his years of qualifying NIC payments. He is neither a Scottish nor British citizen.

Who pays his UK state pension?

As I said earlier, this is an obligation jointly assumed by all current UK citizens. The provenance going forward of jointly assumed obligations will no doubt be part of the complex divorce negotiations. It is naive to assume that all such jointly assumed obligations will be left entirely to rUK.

This is the crucial point. It's not the case that - if one part of the UK splits off - that it keeps its share of the assets but loses the liabilities.

The reality is that it would be a part of the negotiation, just as pensions for Eurocrats were part of the negotiations between the EU and the UK.

But the precedent is that the departing state took on the liabilities, which was fair. I don't see any scenario where the UK government continues to pay pensions for Scottish citizens after independence. It really does become their problem.

Unless the pensioner has dual nationality, though that would be limited to people with an English parent I imagine.

Even then, I expect dual national to need England/Wales/NI residency to qualify. I think anyone voting for independence should come to terms with these simple facts. You should still do it anyway, but don't vote to leave the UK on the basis that the UK will continue to fund and independent Scotland in any way. Any party that proposes this will simply get voted out and any party which promises to end any legacy payments immediately and permanently will win.

So you are demanding to treay rUK nationals like terrorists just because they happen to live in Scotland?

You really do need to wind your neck in.

Just how exactly would that be treating rUK nationals like terrorists? He's talking about the people that won't be UK citizens, i.e. the vast majority of them. Countries tend not to go around paying the pensions of people from elsewhere.

I'm actually EXCLUDING these who aren't rUK citizens - most of the people in Scotland - as I did earlier today.

There are peoiple who will still be rUK subjects with accrued pension rights.

There are people on PB today demanding that these people lose their pensions rights for living in Scotland.

Well that won't happen, and I assume the Scottish government will be picking up the tabs for Scottish people living in England.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Carnyx said:

MrEd said:

Carnyx said:

MrEd said:

MattW said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Leon said:

CarlottaVance said:

Leon said:

Who gets Bermuda?

Nobody in the UK.

It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.

We should make it a constituent part of the UK

After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.

Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.

Do it, Boris

Reclaim Heligoland!

Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.

Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).

Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.

But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.

Heligoland.

Can anyone explain how we would defend it in WW1?

Or why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap. The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal blockage would have been difficult. Plus minefields.

I'd say it was like the Channel Islands in WW2. In practice huge resources were wasted on it by the Germans, which caused little problem for the UK.

It's fairly simple (and that's not meant to be disrespectful).

First the analogy with the Channel Islands is false because of one critical difference, namely air power. The Channel Islands could not be defended because any British naval support force would have been subjected to massive German n airpower operating from occupied France. It would have been pulverised and the RAF would have faced the opposite of the Battle of Britain i.e. shot down pilots would have been difficult to recover. In WW 1, airpower was very limited. Sure, the Germans could have sent over Zeppilins but they would have had limited impact and would have been vulnerable.

Second, Germany did not have a major U-boat fleet at the start of WW 1 and, in any event, coming out of ports like Whiliemshaven would have been vulnerable to the sea lanes being mined.

Third, and also a major factor, the Grand Fleet was bigger than the High Seas Fleet.

Look at what happened at the Battle of Heligoland Blight. The British came over, sank several light cruisers and then buggered off. The Germans couldn't do anything about it.

I think the point is "buggered off". No close blockade with the U-boats and mines. Not like 1793-1814.

I think the point is they didn't have a base in Heligoland so they had to bugger off. If they had the base, they would not have needed to do so.

The High Seas Fleet would simply have not have had the willpower to take out a British-controlled Heligoland. It would have triggered a major sea battle which the Germans wanted to avoid at all costs.

But much closer to the German bases than the British - and splitting the British fleet was precisely the German strategy (Dogger Bank, etc.)

The Germans lost a valuable heavy cruiser, Blucher, at Dogger Bank.

MrEd said:

rottenborough said:

MrEd said:

rottenborough said:

James Melville Cherry blossom
@JamesMelville
·
4h
The Tories now have a 19-point lead over Labour with working class voters. Something has gone badly wrong here. The current messaging from the left simply doesn’t resonate with normal decent working class people. It’s so frustrating.

While many on here will disagree, Labour gives the impression of hating the values of many working class voters, and despising those voters. Why would anyone vote for someone that openly shows their contempt for you?

Labour has a mountain to climb. I'm not sure that things aren't even worse than the party's supposed nadir in the 1980s.

Potentially even more worse. In the 1980s, class was still a powerful force in voting giving Labour a base from which to build. At the moment, it's penned into the cities with a number of vulnerable outposts scattered in the North and Midlands.

MrEd said:

Carnyx said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Carnyx said:

MrEd said:

Carnyx said:

MrEd said:

MattW said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Leon said:

CarlottaVance said:

Leon said:

Who gets Bermuda?

Nobody in the UK.

It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.

We should make it a constituent part of the UK

After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.

Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.

Do it, Boris

Reclaim Heligoland!

Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.

Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).

Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.

But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.

Heligoland.

Can anyone explain how we would defend it in WW1?

Or why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap. The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal blockage would have been difficult. Plus minefields.

I'd say it was like the Channel Islands in WW2. In practice huge resources were wasted on it by the Germans, which caused little problem for the UK.

It's fairly simple (and that's not meant to be disrespectful).

First the analogy with the Channel Islands is false because of one critical difference, namely air power. The Channel Islands could not be defended because any British naval support force would have been subjected to massive German n airpower operating from occupied France. It would have been pulverised and the RAF would have faced the opposite of the Battle of Britain i.e. shot down pilots would have been difficult to recover. In WW 1, airpower was very limited. Sure, the Germans could have sent over Zeppilins but they would have had limited impact and would have been vulnerable.

Second, Germany did not have a major U-boat fleet at the start of WW 1 and, in any event, coming out of ports like Whiliemshaven would have been vulnerable to the sea lanes being mined.

Third, and also a major factor, the Grand Fleet was bigger than the High Seas Fleet.

Look at what happened at the Battle of Heligoland Blight. The British came over, sank several light cruisers and then buggered off. The Germans couldn't do anything about it.

I think the point is "buggered off". No close blockade with the U-boats and mines. Not like 1793-1814.

I think the point is they didn't have a base in Heligoland so they had to bugger off. If they had the base, they would not have needed to do so.

The High Seas Fleet would simply have not have had the willpower to take out a British-controlled Heligoland. It would have triggered a major sea battle which the Germans wanted to avoid at all costs.

But much closer to the German bases than the British - and splitting the British fleet was precisely the German strategy (Dogger Bank, etc.)

The Germans lost a valuable heavy cruiser, Blucher, at Dogger Bank.

Quite so, but the idea was to tempt part of the British fleet our and destroy it in detail. That it didn't work doesn't mean it wasn't the idea.

I'm off for tonight now, too tired to stay oin screen, but if you are ever in Hartlepool the museum on the seafront is well worth a look - some stuff from the bombardmnet, such as a shell from one of the German ships - as is the headland gun battery involved. (Nice railway station with a nice cafe too.) And you can also go and see the Trincomalee. Massive teak built frigate of an earlier era.

Good night Carnyx, thanks for the recommendation.

LostPassword said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

MaxPB said:

Carnyx said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

TimT said:

Alistair said:

felix said:

Alistair said:

A Nigerian qualifies for a UK state pension having worked in London for 30 years and has recently retired and moved to Edinburgh.

Scotland becomes independent.

Who pays his future pension liability?

Who pays if he then moves to New York?

That would depend entirely on his status if he became a Scottish citizen it would be Scotland , etc, etc

No, he's a Nigerian. Who is eligible for and receives a UK state pension due to his years of qualifying NIC payments. He is neither a Scottish nor British citizen.

Who pays his UK state pension?

As I said earlier, this is an obligation jointly assumed by all current UK citizens. The provenance going forward of jointly assumed obligations will no doubt be part of the complex divorce negotiations. It is naive to assume that all such jointly assumed obligations will be left entirely to rUK.

This is the crucial point. It's not the case that - if one part of the UK splits off - that it keeps its share of the assets but loses the liabilities.

The reality is that it would be a part of the negotiation, just as pensions for Eurocrats were part of the negotiations between the EU and the UK.

But the precedent is that the departing state took on the liabilities, which was fair. I don't see any scenario where the UK government continues to pay pensions for Scottish citizens after independence. It really does become their problem.

Unless the pensioner has dual nationality, though that would be limited to people with an English parent I imagine.

Even then, I expect dual national to need England/Wales/NI residency to qualify. I think anyone voting for independence should come to terms with these simple facts. You should still do it anyway, but don't vote to leave the UK on the basis that the UK will continue to fund and independent Scotland in any way. Any party that proposes this will simply get voted out and any party which promises to end any legacy payments immediately and permanently will win.

So you are demanding to treay rUK nationals like terrorists just because they happen to live in Scotland?

You really do need to wind your neck in.

If you vote to depart the UK you will plunge Scotland into Depression and England into a very deep recession. And the whole nation will be torn apart and hurled into a decade of constitutional chaos. Again

Right now, I love Scotland. You are part of me, you are British. I am happy for us to continue to subsidise you, because you have subsidised us in the past, that's how unions work. We are brothers.

But if you vote to smash all this up? Hell yes, I will want you punished. I will want you to suffer. The idea I will vote for any government that promises to indulge this vandalism - with MY money - is absurd. The party that promises to make Scotland moan in pain will get my vote. Millions will do likewise.

Reckon with this, because it is true

I'm simply pointing out that the PBTories are actually saying that rUK subjects who happen to live in Scvotland should have their pensions withdrawn.

How does that make sense?

Your argument appears to be that on day 1 of an independent Scotland all pensions for Scottish residents would be paid by rUK, and Scottish taxpayers would have to pay nothing.

That's completely illogical.

It's magical thinking of the worst kind.

TheScreamingEagles said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

How can there be such a polling disparity, somebody help!

Sampling and methodology.

Reminds me of GE2017, Survation had it at as a 1% Tory lead, others had double digit leads.

TheScreamingEagles said:

NEW: Survation poll for the Mail finds Tory lead down to one point over Labour (Con 39, Lab 38) as Boris Johnson’s popularity suffers in the wake of the Downing Street flat affair


https://twitter.com/Daniel_J_Martin/status/1388236589747277827

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

39% say Carrie Symonds has too much power in Downing Street, 22% say no.

Does Charles recall what Mrs Masham's approval rating was, at a similar stage of HER backstairs influence?

Carnyx said:

LostPassword said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

MaxPB said:

Carnyx said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

TimT said:

Alistair said:

felix said:

Alistair said:

A Nigerian qualifies for a UK state pension having worked in London for 30 years and has recently retired and moved to Edinburgh.

Scotland becomes independent.

Who pays his future pension liability?

Who pays if he then moves to New York?

That would depend entirely on his status if he became a Scottish citizen it would be Scotland , etc, etc

No, he's a Nigerian. Who is eligible for and receives a UK state pension due to his years of qualifying NIC payments. He is neither a Scottish nor British citizen.

Who pays his UK state pension?

As I said earlier, this is an obligation jointly assumed by all current UK citizens. The provenance going forward of jointly assumed obligations will no doubt be part of the complex divorce negotiations. It is naive to assume that all such jointly assumed obligations will be left entirely to rUK.

This is the crucial point. It's not the case that - if one part of the UK splits off - that it keeps its share of the assets but loses the liabilities.

The reality is that it would be a part of the negotiation, just as pensions for Eurocrats were part of the negotiations between the EU and the UK.

But the precedent is that the departing state took on the liabilities, which was fair. I don't see any scenario where the UK government continues to pay pensions for Scottish citizens after independence. It really does become their problem.

Unless the pensioner has dual nationality, though that would be limited to people with an English parent I imagine.

Even then, I expect dual national to need England/Wales/NI residency to qualify. I think anyone voting for independence should come to terms with these simple facts. You should still do it anyway, but don't vote to leave the UK on the basis that the UK will continue to fund and independent Scotland in any way. Any party that proposes this will simply get voted out and any party which promises to end any legacy payments immediately and permanently will win.

So you are demanding to treay rUK nationals like terrorists just because they happen to live in Scotland?

You really do need to wind your neck in.

If you vote to depart the UK you will plunge Scotland into Depression and England into a very deep recession. And the whole nation will be torn apart and hurled into a decade of constitutional chaos. Again

Right now, I love Scotland. You are part of me, you are British. I am happy for us to continue to subsidise you, because you have subsidised us in the past, that's how unions work. We are brothers.

But if you vote to smash all this up? Hell yes, I will want you punished. I will want you to suffer. The idea I will vote for any government that promises to indulge this vandalism - with MY money - is absurd. The party that promises to make Scotland moan in pain will get my vote. Millions will do likewise.

Reckon with this, because it is true

I'm simply pointing out that the PBTories are actually saying that rUK subjects who happen to live in Scvotland should have their pensions withdrawn.

How does that make sense?

Your argument appears to be that on day 1 of an independent Scotland all pensions for Scottish residents would be paid by rUK, and Scottish taxpayers would have to pay nothing.

That's completely illogical.

It's magical thinking of the worst kind.

No, no - only rUK subjects who have retained rUK citizenship, like in Australia etc.

TheScreamingEagles said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

How can there be such a polling disparity, somebody help!

Sampling and methodology.

Reminds me of GE2017, Survation had it at as a 1% Tory lead, others had double digit leads.

Carnyx said:

MrEd said:

Carnyx said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Carnyx said:

MrEd said:

Carnyx said:

MrEd said:

MattW said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Leon said:

CarlottaVance said:

Leon said:

Who gets Bermuda?

Nobody in the UK.

It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.

We should make it a constituent part of the UK

After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.

Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.

Do it, Boris

Reclaim Heligoland!

Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.

Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).

Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.

But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.

Heligoland.

Can anyone explain how we would defend it in WW1?

Or why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap. The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal blockage would have been difficult. Plus minefields.

I'd say it was like the Channel Islands in WW2. In practice huge resources were wasted on it by the Germans, which caused little problem for the UK.

It's fairly simple (and that's not meant to be disrespectful).

First the analogy with the Channel Islands is false because of one critical difference, namely air power. The Channel Islands could not be defended because any British naval support force would have been subjected to massive German n airpower operating from occupied France. It would have been pulverised and the RAF would have faced the opposite of the Battle of Britain i.e. shot down pilots would have been difficult to recover. In WW 1, airpower was very limited. Sure, the Germans could have sent over Zeppilins but they would have had limited impact and would have been vulnerable.

Second, Germany did not have a major U-boat fleet at the start of WW 1 and, in any event, coming out of ports like Whiliemshaven would have been vulnerable to the sea lanes being mined.

Third, and also a major factor, the Grand Fleet was bigger than the High Seas Fleet.

Look at what happened at the Battle of Heligoland Blight. The British came over, sank several light cruisers and then buggered off. The Germans couldn't do anything about it.

I think the point is "buggered off". No close blockade with the U-boats and mines. Not like 1793-1814.

I think the point is they didn't have a base in Heligoland so they had to bugger off. If they had the base, they would not have needed to do so.

The High Seas Fleet would simply have not have had the willpower to take out a British-controlled Heligoland. It would have triggered a major sea battle which the Germans wanted to avoid at all costs.

But much closer to the German bases than the British - and splitting the British fleet was precisely the German strategy (Dogger Bank, etc.)

The Germans lost a valuable heavy cruiser, Blucher, at Dogger Bank.

Quite so, but the idea was to tempt part of the British fleet our and destroy it in detail. That it didn't work doesn't mean it wasn't the idea.

I'm off for tonight now, too tired to stay oin screen, but if you are ever in Hartlepool the museum on the seafront is well worth a look - some stuff from the bombardmnet, such as a shell from one of the German ships - as is the headland gun battery involved. (Nice railway station with a nice cafe too.) And you can also go and see the Trincomalee. Massive teak built frigate of an earlier era.

Good night Carnyx, thanks for the recommendation.

This has made me realise I need to fish out my copy of this rather interesting history

https://smile.amazon.co.uk/Heligoland-Britain-Germany-Struggle-North/dp/0199672466/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=heligoland&qid=1619816530&sr=8-3

And as I recall the French considered capturing trhe Isle of Wight in 1793-1814 for (I assume) similar reasons, there's a study in one of the Portsmouth Papers on this, which I must also fish out.

And the British considered capturing one of the islands near Brest - they did try to do so. Something else to fish out.

Stark_Dawning said:

MrEd said:

rottenborough said:

James Melville Cherry blossom
@JamesMelville
·
4h
The Tories now have a 19-point lead over Labour with working class voters. Something has gone badly wrong here. The current messaging from the left simply doesn’t resonate with normal decent working class people. It’s so frustrating.

While many on here will disagree, Labour gives the impression of hating the values of many working class voters, and despising those voters. Why would anyone vote for someone that openly shows their contempt for you?

Out of interest, what are these peculiarly working-class values that Labour despises?