eek said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Burgessian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

sarissa said:

Hmm...DWP position as stated in the run-up to the 2014 campaign.

That shows, correctly, that state pensions would still be paid in Scotland after independence. Of course they would, unless for some reason the Scottish government post-independence decided to renege on them, which is verging on unthinkable. Equally certainly, it would of course be up to Scottish taxpayers to foot the bill.

This isn't complicated!

I know, but you're dealing with people who think an independent Scotland will be able to set policy for the Governor of Bank England and the Governor will have to follow it, even if it contradicts RUK policy.

The craziness is spreading, here's a former First Minister.

Alex Salmond has claimed that Scotland should go for a "clean break" over debt with the UK during any independence talks.

The former first minister said Alba's position was for the country to pay no share of national debt after separation from the union.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19273429.alex-salmond---scotland-aim-clean-break-debt-uk-future-independence-talks/

But if an independent Scotland goes for that then those Scottish pensions will not be paid by RUK.

I've spent a fair bit of time thinking about the financial implications of Indy and there is no escaping the fact that it would mean austerity on steroids. Just no way of avoiding it. But that is exactly contrary to what is being offered by the SNP and believed by its supporters. A real conundrum.

My day job now includes preparing for a Indyref2/Scottish independence, the implications are staggering.

I suspect Scots may end getting the worst of all worlds.

For example mortgages have to be paid in sterling if Scots go for their own currency and that depreciates badly then you can the mortgages of Scots going up by a lot overnight.

In a past job I used to specialise in sports media rights and also mobile telephony, that's going to have major impacts as well.

Calls to RUK may end up getting charged at international calling rates.

So when you ring up to ask why Sky/BT aren't showing the football or new HBO show on Sky Atlantic then there's going to several shocks.

True.

Though given as long as there remains a Tory government an indyref2 will not be granted may be some time for it to be tested if ever.

At the moment unless there is a Labour government dependent on the SNP for confidence and supply we may never get an indyref2, 2014 would have been the one chance the UK government ever allowed Scottish nationalists to have for independence

There will come a time when Boris or a future leader will willingly get rid of the tax draining Scots...

What happens when he finds out how much NI and Wales cost?

I see Andrew Bridgen was caught chatting shit and has been banged to rights.

https://twitter.com/ABridgen/status/1413515153723715588

No_Offence_Alan said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Burgessian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

sarissa said:

Hmm...DWP position as stated in the run-up to the 2014 campaign.

That shows, correctly, that state pensions would still be paid in Scotland after independence. Of course they would, unless for some reason the Scottish government post-independence decided to renege on them, which is verging on unthinkable. Equally certainly, it would of course be up to Scottish taxpayers to foot the bill.

This isn't complicated!

I know, but you're dealing with people who think an independent Scotland will be able to set policy for the Governor of Bank England and the Governor will have to follow it, even if it contradicts RUK policy.

The craziness is spreading, here's a former First Minister.

Alex Salmond has claimed that Scotland should go for a "clean break" over debt with the UK during any independence talks.

The former first minister said Alba's position was for the country to pay no share of national debt after separation from the union.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19273429.alex-salmond---scotland-aim-clean-break-debt-uk-future-independence-talks/

But if an independent Scotland goes for that then those Scottish pensions will not be paid by RUK.

I've spent a fair bit of time thinking about the financial implications of Indy and there is no escaping the fact that it would mean austerity on steroids. Just no way of avoiding it. But that is exactly contrary to what is being offered by the SNP and believed by its supporters. A real conundrum.

My day job now includes preparing for a Indyref2/Scottish independence, the implications are staggering.

I suspect Scots may end getting the worst of all worlds.

For example mortgages have to be paid in sterling if Scots go for their own currency and that depreciates badly then you can the mortgages of Scots going up by a lot overnight.

In a past job I used to specialise in sports media rights and also mobile telephony, that's going to have major impacts as well.

Calls to RUK may end up getting charged at international calling rates.

So when you ring up to ask why Sky/BT aren't showing the football or new HBO show on Sky Atlantic then there's going to several shocks.

True.

Though given as long as there remains a Tory government an indyref2 will not be granted may be some time for it to be tested if ever.

At the moment unless there is a Labour government dependent on the SNP for confidence and supply we may never get an indyref2, 2014 would have been the one chance the UK government ever allowed Scottish nationalists to have for independence

There will come a time when Boris or a future leader will willingly get rid of the tax draining Scots...

What happens when he finds out how much NI and Wales cost?

Or the North and much of the Midlands.

On that basis you would only be left with London and the South East which net subsidise the rest of the UK but as London is Labour and anti Brexit effectively only the South East

Daveyboy1961 said:

dixiedean said:

NE moving back to the top of the leader board. Every day now folk testing positive all around me. None seriously ill, but still not pleasant.

Yes, the Johnson Variant is creeping over Wales as well as England.

This childish nonsense of calling it the 'Johnson' variant confuses the issues and as it is spreading throughout the world not only would it have arrived here anyway, but it is now breaching the defences of even Australia and New Zealand

This is too serious an issue to play games with it

LostPassword said:

Omnium said:

LostPassword said:

dixiedean said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

dixiedean said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Looks like my tip a couple of days ago on James Geoghegan (FG) to win the Dublin Bay South by-election is not going to go down as one of the smartest in PB history...

FG can't win but my analysis did not get beyond almost anyone else could. Having to guess STV transfers adds a whole new horror to by-election betting. The Polling Station video tipped Ivana and Labour iirc, who looks like winning.

Big result for Labour. Been nearly a decade. Utterly dismal for FF, in admittedly unfriendly territory.

It shouldn't be all that unfriendly to FF - they won one of the four seats in 2020 and in 2016.

On 11.5 and 13.8% of first preferences. Elected third and then fourth. So, unfriendly in terms of not natural territory, and in likelihood of winning when only one candidate is elected.
But, yes, they've fallen below 5%. So pretty dismal for the party of the Taoiseach.

RTÉ say that it's the worst-ever FF performance in a by-election. Quite an achievement for Martin.

But it's possible to read far too much into the result. My wife watched the candidates on RTÉ and said the FF candidate was epically bad, failing to have any answer ready for a standard question on housing policy - which all the politicians said was the defining issue of the 2020GE.

A lot of the commentary from Ireland suggests that FG and the Greens both botched their candidate selection as well.

If there's one thing that will undoubtedly change as a result of Brexit it's Irish politics. No idea how, but I'm sure that Ireland is the most impacted of all of the nations involved (including UK).

Irish politics in the Republic is still in the shadow of the banking crash and the austerity that followed. Brexit hasn't had an impact yet because there has been a broad consensus on how to respond to it.

If Sinn Fein/Nationalism win the next NI Assembly elections, that will have an effect sure enough, and that would seem to be in part a consequence of the DUP, and Unionism generally, trashing itself over Brexit.

Keir Starmer in NI just now, in denial over what may happen soon, but I guess he's concentrating on distancing himself from Corbyn for the benefit of voters in England over saying anything sensible about NI.

Never mind Starmer.

When I am in NI I get the impression that Johnson has successfully turned the Unionists against himself, as well as the Nationalists. Not that any Conservative ever had the Nationalists on board.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Burgessian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

sarissa said:

Hmm...DWP position as stated in the run-up to the 2014 campaign.

That shows, correctly, that state pensions would still be paid in Scotland after independence. Of course they would, unless for some reason the Scottish government post-independence decided to renege on them, which is verging on unthinkable. Equally certainly, it would of course be up to Scottish taxpayers to foot the bill.

This isn't complicated!

I know, but you're dealing with people who think an independent Scotland will be able to set policy for the Governor of Bank England and the Governor will have to follow it, even if it contradicts RUK policy.

The craziness is spreading, here's a former First Minister.

Alex Salmond has claimed that Scotland should go for a "clean break" over debt with the UK during any independence talks.

The former first minister said Alba's position was for the country to pay no share of national debt after separation from the union.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19273429.alex-salmond---scotland-aim-clean-break-debt-uk-future-independence-talks/

But if an independent Scotland goes for that then those Scottish pensions will not be paid by RUK.

I've spent a fair bit of time thinking about the financial implications of Indy and there is no escaping the fact that it would mean austerity on steroids. Just no way of avoiding it. But that is exactly contrary to what is being offered by the SNP and believed by its supporters. A real conundrum.

My day job now includes preparing for a Indyref2/Scottish independence, the implications are staggering.

I suspect Scots may end getting the worst of all worlds.

For example mortgages have to be paid in sterling if Scots go for their own currency and that depreciates badly then you can the mortgages of Scots going up by a lot overnight.

In a past job I used to specialise in sports media rights and also mobile telephony, that's going to have major impacts as well.

Calls to RUK may end up getting charged at international calling rates.

So when you ring up to ask why Sky/BT aren't showing the football or new HBO show on Sky Atlantic then there's going to several shocks.

True.

Though given as long as there remains a Tory government an indyref2 will not be granted may be some time for it to be tested if ever.

At the moment unless there is a Labour government dependent on the SNP for confidence and supply we may never get an indyref2, 2014 would have been the one chance the UK government ever allowed Scottish nationalists to have for independence

I assume you just ignore the countless posters who keep asking you to stop copying and pasting the same mantra, which to be honest is boring

@TSE is making interesting and very relevant points on Scottish Independence and adds to the debate that will continue into the future and, of course, there may come an optimum time in the next few years to allow an Independence referendum and actually win it for the Union

Please try to add to the debate and not continue to embarrass yourself

Of course the optimum time to allow an indyref2 is a Labour led government more closely aligned to the SM and CU and prepared to grant Holyrood devomax anyway

TheScreamingEagles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Burgessian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

sarissa said:

Hmm...DWP position as stated in the run-up to the 2014 campaign.

That shows, correctly, that state pensions would still be paid in Scotland after independence. Of course they would, unless for some reason the Scottish government post-independence decided to renege on them, which is verging on unthinkable. Equally certainly, it would of course be up to Scottish taxpayers to foot the bill.

This isn't complicated!

I know, but you're dealing with people who think an independent Scotland will be able to set policy for the Governor of Bank England and the Governor will have to follow it, even if it contradicts RUK policy.

The craziness is spreading, here's a former First Minister.

Alex Salmond has claimed that Scotland should go for a "clean break" over debt with the UK during any independence talks.

The former first minister said Alba's position was for the country to pay no share of national debt after separation from the union.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19273429.alex-salmond---scotland-aim-clean-break-debt-uk-future-independence-talks/

But if an independent Scotland goes for that then those Scottish pensions will not be paid by RUK.

I've spent a fair bit of time thinking about the financial implications of Indy and there is no escaping the fact that it would mean austerity on steroids. Just no way of avoiding it. But that is exactly contrary to what is being offered by the SNP and believed by its supporters. A real conundrum.

My day job now includes preparing for a Indyref2/Scottish independence, the implications are staggering.

I suspect Scots may end getting the worst of all worlds.

For example mortgages have to be paid in sterling if Scots go for their own currency or go rogue and that depreciates badly then you can the mortgages of Scots going up by a lot overnight.

In a past job I used to specialise in sports media rights and also mobile telephony, that's going to have major impacts as well.

Calls to RUK may end up getting charged at international calling rates.

So when you ring up to ask why Sky/BT aren't showing the football or new HBO show on Sky Atlantic then there's going to several shocks.

It's 2021. Who the heck is still paying international calling rates?

You cannot Whatsapp Sky or BT customer services, so you want to ring BT to complain about BT Sport no longer airing in Scotland you'll have to ring a RUK number which has now become an international destination for Scottish residents.

Or you'd call whichever Scottish company had the rights to show sport in Scotland.

Or you'd use one of many internet services to ahem secure BT Sport.

Or ... Plenty of options available.

I was talking specifically about the no deal Scexit scenario.

With suggestions as farcical as those brought up when talking about a no deal Brexit.

If BT stop broadcasting to Scotland someone else will have the rights instead.

Besides you can ahem steam BT Sport in Abu Dhabi I'm sure you can do so in Edinburgh too.

FrancisUrquhart said:

"Poll @RedfieldWilton finds 47% of people will always or mostly wear a mask after 19th July. Could be next culture war - two thirds of maskers think non-maskers are 'overly reckless' (but non-maskers are more accepting of maskers)"

https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1413524591050379272?s=20

29% will continue to wear one some of the time as I will in winter on the tube even after double vaccination

IshmaelZ said:

LostPassword said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

contrarian said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9772259/40-patients-Indian-Delta-variant-admitted-hospital-reasons-Covid.html

Uh-oh

Moody hospitalisation numbers?

Yes, I think a lot of in hospital transmission, as well as routine testing.

Even asymptomatic infection greatly increases the risk of death with surgery, by a factor of 6.

https://twitter.com/_tomabbott/status/1405793264662425607?s=19

That's extraordinary.

Risk of death increased by a factor of 25 for patients with asymptomatic SARS-Cov-2 having elective surgery. Oh my.

So 6 or 25, which?

6 overall, which includes emergency surgery, so where the risk of death is higher to start with, and Covid makes less difference.

25 for elective surgery.

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Burgessian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

sarissa said:

Hmm...DWP position as stated in the run-up to the 2014 campaign.

That shows, correctly, that state pensions would still be paid in Scotland after independence. Of course they would, unless for some reason the Scottish government post-independence decided to renege on them, which is verging on unthinkable. Equally certainly, it would of course be up to Scottish taxpayers to foot the bill.

This isn't complicated!

I know, but you're dealing with people who think an independent Scotland will be able to set policy for the Governor of Bank England and the Governor will have to follow it, even if it contradicts RUK policy.

The craziness is spreading, here's a former First Minister.

Alex Salmond has claimed that Scotland should go for a "clean break" over debt with the UK during any independence talks.

The former first minister said Alba's position was for the country to pay no share of national debt after separation from the union.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19273429.alex-salmond---scotland-aim-clean-break-debt-uk-future-independence-talks/

But if an independent Scotland goes for that then those Scottish pensions will not be paid by RUK.

I've spent a fair bit of time thinking about the financial implications of Indy and there is no escaping the fact that it would mean austerity on steroids. Just no way of avoiding it. But that is exactly contrary to what is being offered by the SNP and believed by its supporters. A real conundrum.

My day job now includes preparing for a Indyref2/Scottish independence, the implications are staggering.

I suspect Scots may end getting the worst of all worlds.

For example mortgages have to be paid in sterling if Scots go for their own currency and that depreciates badly then you can the mortgages of Scots going up by a lot overnight.

In a past job I used to specialise in sports media rights and also mobile telephony, that's going to have major impacts as well.

Calls to RUK may end up getting charged at international calling rates.

So when you ring up to ask why Sky/BT aren't showing the football or new HBO show on Sky Atlantic then there's going to several shocks.

True.

Though given as long as there remains a Tory government an indyref2 will not be granted may be some time for it to be tested if ever.

At the moment unless there is a Labour government dependent on the SNP for confidence and supply we may never get an indyref2, 2014 would have been the one chance the UK government ever allowed Scottish nationalists to have for independence

There will come a time when Boris or a future leader will willingly get rid of the tax draining Scots...

They won't, Boris or any future Tory leader would go down in history as the 21st century Lord North if they lost Scotland. Plus they would lose most North Sea oil for any spending subsidy reduction and see a hard border and customs posts at Berwick post Brexit.

Instead as long as we Tories remain in power we will refuse indyref2 and nothing the SNP can do about it

You do not speak for this conservative member so just cut our the idiotic 'we Tories'

I do speak for this Tory government on this
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19391725.indyref2-michael-gove-says-pm-will-not-grant-scotland-referendum-general-election/

The same as Foreign aid and the triple lock then

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Burgessian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

sarissa said:

Hmm...DWP position as stated in the run-up to the 2014 campaign.

That shows, correctly, that state pensions would still be paid in Scotland after independence. Of course they would, unless for some reason the Scottish government post-independence decided to renege on them, which is verging on unthinkable. Equally certainly, it would of course be up to Scottish taxpayers to foot the bill.

This isn't complicated!

I know, but you're dealing with people who think an independent Scotland will be able to set policy for the Governor of Bank England and the Governor will have to follow it, even if it contradicts RUK policy.

The craziness is spreading, here's a former First Minister.

Alex Salmond has claimed that Scotland should go for a "clean break" over debt with the UK during any independence talks.

The former first minister said Alba's position was for the country to pay no share of national debt after separation from the union.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19273429.alex-salmond---scotland-aim-clean-break-debt-uk-future-independence-talks/

But if an independent Scotland goes for that then those Scottish pensions will not be paid by RUK.

I've spent a fair bit of time thinking about the financial implications of Indy and there is no escaping the fact that it would mean austerity on steroids. Just no way of avoiding it. But that is exactly contrary to what is being offered by the SNP and believed by its supporters. A real conundrum.

My day job now includes preparing for a Indyref2/Scottish independence, the implications are staggering.

I suspect Scots may end getting the worst of all worlds.

For example mortgages have to be paid in sterling if Scots go for their own currency or go rogue and that depreciates badly then you can the mortgages of Scots going up by a lot overnight.

In a past job I used to specialise in sports media rights and also mobile telephony, that's going to have major impacts as well.

Calls to RUK may end up getting charged at international calling rates.

So when you ring up to ask why Sky/BT aren't showing the football or new HBO show on Sky Atlantic then there's going to several shocks.

It's 2021. Who the heck is still paying international calling rates?

You cannot Whatsapp Sky or BT customer services, so you want to ring BT to complain about BT Sport no longer airing in Scotland you'll have to ring a RUK number which has now become an international destination for Scottish residents.

Or you'd call whichever Scottish company had the rights to show sport in Scotland.

Or you'd use one of many internet services to ahem secure BT Sport.

Or ... Plenty of options available.

Like financial services you know not what you talk about.

It is possible in the event of No Deal Scexit the rights default back to UEFA and the PL as BT Sport nor Sky have an operating license. If it goes to the wire and there's no deal, there will not be an ability to run an auction.

Most standard media rights have a clause which prohibits broadcasters from broadcasting in territories they do not have the right to broadcast.

For example 24 was pulled from the BBC by Fox because the signal was reaching other parts of Europe.

Fox began approaching other UK broadcasters about 24 nearly two weeks ago after talks with the BBC collapsed. The corporation claimed it was not willing to meet Fox's price.

However, Fox was unhappy that 24 could be seen in other European countries - the BBC broadcasts its channel "in the clear" on digital satellite - and this was another significant factor in the breakdown of negotiations.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/dec/17/broadcasting.bbc1

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Burgessian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

sarissa said:

Hmm...DWP position as stated in the run-up to the 2014 campaign.

That shows, correctly, that state pensions would still be paid in Scotland after independence. Of course they would, unless for some reason the Scottish government post-independence decided to renege on them, which is verging on unthinkable. Equally certainly, it would of course be up to Scottish taxpayers to foot the bill.

This isn't complicated!

I know, but you're dealing with people who think an independent Scotland will be able to set policy for the Governor of Bank England and the Governor will have to follow it, even if it contradicts RUK policy.

The craziness is spreading, here's a former First Minister.

Alex Salmond has claimed that Scotland should go for a "clean break" over debt with the UK during any independence talks.

The former first minister said Alba's position was for the country to pay no share of national debt after separation from the union.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19273429.alex-salmond---scotland-aim-clean-break-debt-uk-future-independence-talks/

But if an independent Scotland goes for that then those Scottish pensions will not be paid by RUK.

I've spent a fair bit of time thinking about the financial implications of Indy and there is no escaping the fact that it would mean austerity on steroids. Just no way of avoiding it. But that is exactly contrary to what is being offered by the SNP and believed by its supporters. A real conundrum.

My day job now includes preparing for a Indyref2/Scottish independence, the implications are staggering.

I suspect Scots may end getting the worst of all worlds.

For example mortgages have to be paid in sterling if Scots go for their own currency and that depreciates badly then you can the mortgages of Scots going up by a lot overnight.

In a past job I used to specialise in sports media rights and also mobile telephony, that's going to have major impacts as well.

Calls to RUK may end up getting charged at international calling rates.

So when you ring up to ask why Sky/BT aren't showing the football or new HBO show on Sky Atlantic then there's going to several shocks.

True.

Though given as long as there remains a Tory government an indyref2 will not be granted may be some time for it to be tested if ever.

At the moment unless there is a Labour government dependent on the SNP for confidence and supply we may never get an indyref2, 2014 would have been the one chance the UK government ever allowed Scottish nationalists to have for independence

I assume you just ignore the countless posters who keep asking you to stop copying and pasting the same mantra, which to be honest is boring

@TSE is making interesting and very relevant points on Scottish Independence and adds to the debate that will continue into the future and, of course, there may come an optimum time in the next few years to allow an Independence referendum and actually win it for the Union

Please try to add to the debate and not continue to embarrass yourself

Of course the optimum time to allow an indyref2 is a Labour led government more closely aligned to the SM and CU and prepared to grant Holyrood devomax anyway

That is more nonsense

If you want to maximise the chances of a No vote again you would want a Labour led government offering devomax not a Boris led Tory government hostile to devolution as now.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Burgessian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

sarissa said:

Hmm...DWP position as stated in the run-up to the 2014 campaign.

That shows, correctly, that state pensions would still be paid in Scotland after independence. Of course they would, unless for some reason the Scottish government post-independence decided to renege on them, which is verging on unthinkable. Equally certainly, it would of course be up to Scottish taxpayers to foot the bill.

This isn't complicated!

I know, but you're dealing with people who think an independent Scotland will be able to set policy for the Governor of Bank England and the Governor will have to follow it, even if it contradicts RUK policy.

The craziness is spreading, here's a former First Minister.

Alex Salmond has claimed that Scotland should go for a "clean break" over debt with the UK during any independence talks.

The former first minister said Alba's position was for the country to pay no share of national debt after separation from the union.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19273429.alex-salmond---scotland-aim-clean-break-debt-uk-future-independence-talks/

But if an independent Scotland goes for that then those Scottish pensions will not be paid by RUK.

I've spent a fair bit of time thinking about the financial implications of Indy and there is no escaping the fact that it would mean austerity on steroids. Just no way of avoiding it. But that is exactly contrary to what is being offered by the SNP and believed by its supporters. A real conundrum.

My day job now includes preparing for a Indyref2/Scottish independence, the implications are staggering.

I suspect Scots may end getting the worst of all worlds.

For example mortgages have to be paid in sterling if Scots go for their own currency and that depreciates badly then you can the mortgages of Scots going up by a lot overnight.

In a past job I used to specialise in sports media rights and also mobile telephony, that's going to have major impacts as well.

Calls to RUK may end up getting charged at international calling rates.

So when you ring up to ask why Sky/BT aren't showing the football or new HBO show on Sky Atlantic then there's going to several shocks.

True.

Though given as long as there remains a Tory government an indyref2 will not be granted may be some time for it to be tested if ever.

At the moment unless there is a Labour government dependent on the SNP for confidence and supply we may never get an indyref2, 2014 would have been the one chance the UK government ever allowed Scottish nationalists to have for independence

I assume you just ignore the countless posters who keep asking you to stop copying and pasting the same mantra, which to be honest is boring

@TSE is making interesting and very relevant points on Scottish Independence and adds to the debate that will continue into the future and, of course, there may come an optimum time in the next few years to allow an Independence referendum and actually win it for the Union

Please try to add to the debate and not continue to embarrass yourself

Of course the optimum time to allow an indyref2 is a Labour led government more closely aligned to the SM and CU and prepared to grant Holyrood devomax anyway

That is more nonsense

Buit he is a Tory Party officer and councillor and you aren't. (Hasty edit: no disrespect to you intended at all: simply a factual observation, so far as I know!)

And he still hasn't explained why all of a sudden he is anxious to see an English parliament rather than stick with what worked for Henry [edit] VIII.

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Burgessian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

sarissa said:

Hmm...DWP position as stated in the run-up to the 2014 campaign.

That shows, correctly, that state pensions would still be paid in Scotland after independence. Of course they would, unless for some reason the Scottish government post-independence decided to renege on them, which is verging on unthinkable. Equally certainly, it would of course be up to Scottish taxpayers to foot the bill.

This isn't complicated!

I know, but you're dealing with people who think an independent Scotland will be able to set policy for the Governor of Bank England and the Governor will have to follow it, even if it contradicts RUK policy.

The craziness is spreading, here's a former First Minister.

Alex Salmond has claimed that Scotland should go for a "clean break" over debt with the UK during any independence talks.

The former first minister said Alba's position was for the country to pay no share of national debt after separation from the union.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19273429.alex-salmond---scotland-aim-clean-break-debt-uk-future-independence-talks/

But if an independent Scotland goes for that then those Scottish pensions will not be paid by RUK.

I've spent a fair bit of time thinking about the financial implications of Indy and there is no escaping the fact that it would mean austerity on steroids. Just no way of avoiding it. But that is exactly contrary to what is being offered by the SNP and believed by its supporters. A real conundrum.

My day job now includes preparing for a Indyref2/Scottish independence, the implications are staggering.

I suspect Scots may end getting the worst of all worlds.

For example mortgages have to be paid in sterling if Scots go for their own currency and that depreciates badly then you can the mortgages of Scots going up by a lot overnight.

In a past job I used to specialise in sports media rights and also mobile telephony, that's going to have major impacts as well.

Calls to RUK may end up getting charged at international calling rates.

So when you ring up to ask why Sky/BT aren't showing the football or new HBO show on Sky Atlantic then there's going to several shocks.

True.

Though given as long as there remains a Tory government an indyref2 will not be granted may be some time for it to be tested if ever.

At the moment unless there is a Labour government dependent on the SNP for confidence and supply we may never get an indyref2, 2014 would have been the one chance the UK government ever allowed Scottish nationalists to have for independence

I assume you just ignore the countless posters who keep asking you to stop copying and pasting the same mantra, which to be honest is boring

@TSE is making interesting and very relevant points on Scottish Independence and adds to the debate that will continue into the future and, of course, there may come an optimum time in the next few years to allow an Independence referendum and actually win it for the Union

Please try to add to the debate and not continue to embarrass yourself

Of course the optimum time to allow an indyref2 is a Labour led government more closely aligned to the SM and CU and prepared to grant Holyrood devomax anyway

That is more nonsense

Buit he is a Tory Party officer and councillor and you aren't.

And he still hasn't explained why all of a sudden he is anxious to see an English parliament rather than stick with what worked for Henry VII.

Under Henry VII the Union with Wales, let alone with Scotland and Ireland had yet to occur and I am a Unionist not an English Nationalist

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Burgessian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

sarissa said:

Hmm...DWP position as stated in the run-up to the 2014 campaign.

That shows, correctly, that state pensions would still be paid in Scotland after independence. Of course they would, unless for some reason the Scottish government post-independence decided to renege on them, which is verging on unthinkable. Equally certainly, it would of course be up to Scottish taxpayers to foot the bill.

This isn't complicated!

I know, but you're dealing with people who think an independent Scotland will be able to set policy for the Governor of Bank England and the Governor will have to follow it, even if it contradicts RUK policy.

The craziness is spreading, here's a former First Minister.

Alex Salmond has claimed that Scotland should go for a "clean break" over debt with the UK during any independence talks.

The former first minister said Alba's position was for the country to pay no share of national debt after separation from the union.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19273429.alex-salmond---scotland-aim-clean-break-debt-uk-future-independence-talks/

But if an independent Scotland goes for that then those Scottish pensions will not be paid by RUK.

I've spent a fair bit of time thinking about the financial implications of Indy and there is no escaping the fact that it would mean austerity on steroids. Just no way of avoiding it. But that is exactly contrary to what is being offered by the SNP and believed by its supporters. A real conundrum.

My day job now includes preparing for a Indyref2/Scottish independence, the implications are staggering.

I suspect Scots may end getting the worst of all worlds.

For example mortgages have to be paid in sterling if Scots go for their own currency and that depreciates badly then you can the mortgages of Scots going up by a lot overnight.

In a past job I used to specialise in sports media rights and also mobile telephony, that's going to have major impacts as well.

Calls to RUK may end up getting charged at international calling rates.

So when you ring up to ask why Sky/BT aren't showing the football or new HBO show on Sky Atlantic then there's going to several shocks.

True.

Though given as long as there remains a Tory government an indyref2 will not be granted may be some time for it to be tested if ever.

At the moment unless there is a Labour government dependent on the SNP for confidence and supply we may never get an indyref2, 2014 would have been the one chance the UK government ever allowed Scottish nationalists to have for independence

I assume you just ignore the countless posters who keep asking you to stop copying and pasting the same mantra, which to be honest is boring

@TSE is making interesting and very relevant points on Scottish Independence and adds to the debate that will continue into the future and, of course, there may come an optimum time in the next few years to allow an Independence referendum and actually win it for the Union

Please try to add to the debate and not continue to embarrass yourself

Of course the optimum time to allow an indyref2 is a Labour led government more closely aligned to the SM and CU and prepared to grant Holyrood devomax anyway

That is more nonsense

Buit he is a Tory Party officer and councillor and you aren't.

And he still hasn't explained why all of a sudden he is anxious to see an English parliament rather than stick with what worked for Henry VII.

Under Henry VII the Union with Wales, let alone with Scotland and Ireland had yet to occur and I am a Unionist not an English Nationalist

Sorry, I meant VIII. And VIII certainly tried to unify all four countries by force.

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Burgessian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

sarissa said:

Hmm...DWP position as stated in the run-up to the 2014 campaign.

That shows, correctly, that state pensions would still be paid in Scotland after independence. Of course they would, unless for some reason the Scottish government post-independence decided to renege on them, which is verging on unthinkable. Equally certainly, it would of course be up to Scottish taxpayers to foot the bill.

This isn't complicated!

I know, but you're dealing with people who think an independent Scotland will be able to set policy for the Governor of Bank England and the Governor will have to follow it, even if it contradicts RUK policy.

The craziness is spreading, here's a former First Minister.

Alex Salmond has claimed that Scotland should go for a "clean break" over debt with the UK during any independence talks.

The former first minister said Alba's position was for the country to pay no share of national debt after separation from the union.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19273429.alex-salmond---scotland-aim-clean-break-debt-uk-future-independence-talks/

But if an independent Scotland goes for that then those Scottish pensions will not be paid by RUK.

I've spent a fair bit of time thinking about the financial implications of Indy and there is no escaping the fact that it would mean austerity on steroids. Just no way of avoiding it. But that is exactly contrary to what is being offered by the SNP and believed by its supporters. A real conundrum.

My day job now includes preparing for a Indyref2/Scottish independence, the implications are staggering.

I suspect Scots may end getting the worst of all worlds.

For example mortgages have to be paid in sterling if Scots go for their own currency and that depreciates badly then you can the mortgages of Scots going up by a lot overnight.

In a past job I used to specialise in sports media rights and also mobile telephony, that's going to have major impacts as well.

Calls to RUK may end up getting charged at international calling rates.

So when you ring up to ask why Sky/BT aren't showing the football or new HBO show on Sky Atlantic then there's going to several shocks.

True.

Though given as long as there remains a Tory government an indyref2 will not be granted may be some time for it to be tested if ever.

At the moment unless there is a Labour government dependent on the SNP for confidence and supply we may never get an indyref2, 2014 would have been the one chance the UK government ever allowed Scottish nationalists to have for independence

There will come a time when Boris or a future leader will willingly get rid of the tax draining Scots...

They won't, Boris or any future Tory leader would go down in history as the 21st century Lord North if they lost Scotland. Plus they would lose most North Sea oil for any spending subsidy reduction and see a hard border and customs posts at Berwick post Brexit.

Instead as long as we Tories remain in power we will refuse indyref2 and nothing the SNP can do about it

You do not speak for this conservative member so just cut our the idiotic 'we Tories'

I do speak for this Tory government on this
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19391725.indyref2-michael-gove-says-pm-will-not-grant-scotland-referendum-general-election/

The same as Foreign aid and the triple lock then

Cutting foreign aid is popular and ending the triple lock after the deficit created by Covid is necessary.

Allowing an indyref2 with a 50% chance of a Yes vote which would end Boris' premiership the next day and see him go down in history for all eternity as the 21st century Lord North who lost Scotland rather than the architect of Brexit he wants to be remembered for is a different matter entirely.

Hence Boris has said there should be no indyref2 for 40 years

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/wait-40-years-for-another-scottish-independence-vote-says-boris-johnson-kwb7njq99

Wouldn’t that depend on whether Scotland actually voted to leave?

alex_ said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Burgessian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

sarissa said:

Hmm...DWP position as stated in the run-up to the 2014 campaign.

That shows, correctly, that state pensions would still be paid in Scotland after independence. Of course they would, unless for some reason the Scottish government post-independence decided to renege on them, which is verging on unthinkable. Equally certainly, it would of course be up to Scottish taxpayers to foot the bill.

This isn't complicated!

I know, but you're dealing with people who think an independent Scotland will be able to set policy for the Governor of Bank England and the Governor will have to follow it, even if it contradicts RUK policy.

The craziness is spreading, here's a former First Minister.

Alex Salmond has claimed that Scotland should go for a "clean break" over debt with the UK during any independence talks.

The former first minister said Alba's position was for the country to pay no share of national debt after separation from the union.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19273429.alex-salmond---scotland-aim-clean-break-debt-uk-future-independence-talks/

But if an independent Scotland goes for that then those Scottish pensions will not be paid by RUK.

I've spent a fair bit of time thinking about the financial implications of Indy and there is no escaping the fact that it would mean austerity on steroids. Just no way of avoiding it. But that is exactly contrary to what is being offered by the SNP and believed by its supporters. A real conundrum.

My day job now includes preparing for a Indyref2/Scottish independence, the implications are staggering.

I suspect Scots may end getting the worst of all worlds.

For example mortgages have to be paid in sterling if Scots go for their own currency and that depreciates badly then you can the mortgages of Scots going up by a lot overnight.

In a past job I used to specialise in sports media rights and also mobile telephony, that's going to have major impacts as well.

Calls to RUK may end up getting charged at international calling rates.

So when you ring up to ask why Sky/BT aren't showing the football or new HBO show on Sky Atlantic then there's going to several shocks.

True.

Though given as long as there remains a Tory government an indyref2 will not be granted may be some time for it to be tested if ever.

At the moment unless there is a Labour government dependent on the SNP for confidence and supply we may never get an indyref2, 2014 would have been the one chance the UK government ever allowed Scottish nationalists to have for independence

There will come a time when Boris or a future leader will willingly get rid of the tax draining Scots...

They won't, Boris or any future Tory leader would go down in history as the 21st century Lord North if they lost Scotland. Plus they would lose most North Sea oil for any spending subsidy reduction and see a hard border and customs posts at Berwick post Brexit.

Instead as long as we Tories remain in power we will refuse indyref2 and nothing the SNP can do about it

You do not speak for this conservative member so just cut our the idiotic 'we Tories'

I do speak for this Tory government on this
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19391725.indyref2-michael-gove-says-pm-will-not-grant-scotland-referendum-general-election/

The same as Foreign aid and the triple lock then

Cutting foreign aid is popular and ending the triple lock after the deficit created by Covid is necessary.

Allowing an indyref2 with a 50% chance of a Yes vote which would end Boris' premiership the next day and see him go down in history for all eternity as the 21st century Lord North who lost Scotland rather than the architect of Brexit he wants to be remembered for is a different matter entirely.

Hence Boris has said there should be no indyref2 for 40 years

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/wait-40-years-for-another-scottish-independence-vote-says-boris-johnson-kwb7njq99

Wouldn’t that depend on whether Scotland actually voted to leave?

It depends on adding a few commas, I think ...

contrarian said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Gnud said:

Gnud said:

Tunisian health system "has collapsed":

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210708-tunisia-virus-situation-catastrophic-health-ministry

https://www.rt.com/news/528733-tunisia-health-system-collaspe-covid/

Oxygen shortages. Difficulties getting dead bodies out of hospitals. "The boat is sinking," says health ministry spokesperson.

It's looking awful in Tunisia:

R: 1.4;
CFR: > 3% throughout 2021 so far;
new cases: ~0.3% of population per week, and rising;
vaccinated (1x, 2x): 12%, 5%.

Any country that has missed the brief respite window to do mass vaccination before being hit with the Indian variant is going to be in big trouble.

Obviously for many countries due to economics that missed window wasn't necessarily their fault.

I think given when we got the Indian variant, if we hadn't been already as far a long with vaccinations, we would be seeing another blood bath.

Where is the bloodbath in the republican US....?

High degree of rurality amongst republicans has so far counteracted the low vaccine takeup - 4 worst states for deaths all in the NE seaboard and highly densely populated, NJ, NY, MA, RI.

Emily Thornbury look away:

https://twitter.com/christiancalgie/status/1413529439208714250?s=20

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Burgessian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

sarissa said:

Hmm...DWP position as stated in the run-up to the 2014 campaign.

That shows, correctly, that state pensions would still be paid in Scotland after independence. Of course they would, unless for some reason the Scottish government post-independence decided to renege on them, which is verging on unthinkable. Equally certainly, it would of course be up to Scottish taxpayers to foot the bill.

This isn't complicated!

I know, but you're dealing with people who think an independent Scotland will be able to set policy for the Governor of Bank England and the Governor will have to follow it, even if it contradicts RUK policy.

The craziness is spreading, here's a former First Minister.

Alex Salmond has claimed that Scotland should go for a "clean break" over debt with the UK during any independence talks.

The former first minister said Alba's position was for the country to pay no share of national debt after separation from the union.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19273429.alex-salmond---scotland-aim-clean-break-debt-uk-future-independence-talks/

But if an independent Scotland goes for that then those Scottish pensions will not be paid by RUK.

I've spent a fair bit of time thinking about the financial implications of Indy and there is no escaping the fact that it would mean austerity on steroids. Just no way of avoiding it. But that is exactly contrary to what is being offered by the SNP and believed by its supporters. A real conundrum.

My day job now includes preparing for a Indyref2/Scottish independence, the implications are staggering.

I suspect Scots may end getting the worst of all worlds.

For example mortgages have to be paid in sterling if Scots go for their own currency or go rogue and that depreciates badly then you can the mortgages of Scots going up by a lot overnight.

In a past job I used to specialise in sports media rights and also mobile telephony, that's going to have major impacts as well.

Calls to RUK may end up getting charged at international calling rates.

So when you ring up to ask why Sky/BT aren't showing the football or new HBO show on Sky Atlantic then there's going to several shocks.

It's 2021. Who the heck is still paying international calling rates?

You cannot Whatsapp Sky or BT customer services, so you want to ring BT to complain about BT Sport no longer airing in Scotland you'll have to ring a RUK number which has now become an international destination for Scottish residents.

Or you'd call whichever Scottish company had the rights to show sport in Scotland.

Or you'd use one of many internet services to ahem secure BT Sport.

Or ... Plenty of options available.

Like financial services you know not what you talk about.

It is possible in the event of No Deal Scexit the rights default back to UEFA and the PL as BT Sport nor Sky have an operating license. If it goes to the wire and there's no deal, there will not be an ability to run an auction.

Most standard media rights have a clause which prohibits broadcasters from broadcasting in territories they do not have the right to broadcast.

For example 24 was pulled from the BBC by Fox because the signal was reaching other parts of Europe.

Fox began approaching other UK broadcasters about 24 nearly two weeks ago after talks with the BBC collapsed. The corporation claimed it was not willing to meet Fox's price.

However, Fox was unhappy that 24 could be seen in other European countries - the BBC broadcasts its channel "in the clear" on digital satellite - and this was another significant factor in the breakdown of negotiations.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/dec/17/broadcasting.bbc1

The row over ‘24’ definitely had nothing to do with Fox’s sister company, Sky, re-launching their Sky One channel with a push for more American content?

Nope.

It was because Fox were getting pressured by French, Dutch, and Belgium TV companies who had spent a lot of money for the rights to 24 in their countries and then people in those countries could access the BBC3/2 for free.

They threatened a boycott of Fox which led to them into pulling it from the Beeb.

My friend worked on that deal, it was quite fraught.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Not enough flags for my liking.....

https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1413528743864320002?s=20

Has someone used a shrink ray on Boris? He looks tiny in that photo.

The alternative is that M C Escher is doing the photos for No 10 as well as No 11.

dixiedean said:

NE moving back to the top of the leader board. Every day now folk testing positive all around me. None seriously ill, but still not pleasant.

A mate of mine, 2 jabs, hardly leaves the house, has just got it.

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

Black_Rook said:

CarlottaVance said:

Emily Thornbury look away:

https://twitter.com/christiancalgie/status/1413529439208714250?s=20

In the replies:

"The perfect cover under which to get rid of English Votes for English Laws"

It makes a change from more Union Flags than an Orange march, I must say.

But why scrub EVEL? And why is HYUFD so exercised about hacing an English Parliament all of a sudden?

As without EVEL we need an English Parliament or if in 2024 Starmer becomes PM in a hung parliament reliant on SNP support but with a Tory majority still in England, Scottish Labour and SNP MPs could vote on English domestic legislation while English Tory MPs get no vote on most Scottish domestic legislation.

That would be a worse position for the English than for Scotland now as English Tory MPs cannot vote on Holyrood matters now even when in government across the UK

Scottish Tory MPs yes but not SNP - you know that as well as I do. You're making up a scare story.

But in that case wny delete EVEL in the first place?

Carnyx said:

Black_Rook said:

CarlottaVance said:

Emily Thornbury look away:

https://twitter.com/christiancalgie/status/1413529439208714250?s=20

In the replies:

"The perfect cover under which to get rid of English Votes for English Laws"

It makes a change from more Union Flags than an Orange march, I must say.

But why scrub EVEL? And why is HYUFD so exercised about hacing an English Parliament all of a sudden?

I really don't know what the Government is playing at when it comes to EVEL. It would be fascinating to hear a convincing explanation.

As for Unionists, they're at sixes and sevens over how to put right the mess that New Labour created. If you're not going either to reverse devolution outright or accept that dissolution is inevitable, then federalism is the other stable endpoint - in theory. Some embrace it, others think that an English Parliament would give rise to an English National Party in about five minutes flat and it would pull the whole house down.

One is moved once again to conclude that Tam Dalyell was right. Devolution = death to the UK. It's just a matter of time.

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

Black_Rook said:

CarlottaVance said:

Emily Thornbury look away:

https://twitter.com/christiancalgie/status/1413529439208714250?s=20

In the replies:

"The perfect cover under which to get rid of English Votes for English Laws"

It makes a change from more Union Flags than an Orange march, I must say.

But why scrub EVEL? And why is HYUFD so exercised about hacing an English Parliament all of a sudden?

As without EVEL we need an English Parliament or if in 2024 Starmer becomes PM in a hung parliament reliant on SNP support but with a Tory majority still in England, Scottish Labour and SNP MPs could vote on English domestic legislation while English Tory MPs get no vote on most Scottish domestic legislation.

That would be a worse position for the English than for Scotland now as English Tory MPs cannot vote on Holyrood matters now even when in government across the UK

Scottish Tory MPs yes but not SNP - you know that as well as I do. You're making up a scare story.

But in that case wny delete EVEL in the first place?

If Starmer offered the SNP indyref2 in return for joining Scottish Labour MPs and voting on English legislation to ensure he could get English domestic legislation through then they would.

EVEL is not as strong a guarantee as an English Parliament

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Emily Thornbury look away:

https://twitter.com/christiancalgie/status/1413529439208714250?s=20

This must be deliberate to wind the usual suspects up.

Scott n Paste....

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

Having returned from chopping wood and given an Ash log a real pummelling I decided stupidly to have one more go with HYUFD on this comparing earnings and inflation topic. This time though rather than using logic I thought I would present a few facts.

Previously I asked HYUFD whether he thought he would be better off if he was paid the salary for his work at 1910 rates plus inflation. He said he would.

Can I suggest HYUFD you get another job because:

a) If you increase the average salary of a man in 1910 by inflation it will be less than a 1/3 of the average salary today. If you do the same for women it will less than 1/7 of the average salary today. And that is based on a 55 hour week in 1910 as well.

b) If you increase a policeman's pay in 1910 by inflation it will be worth 0.23 of a current policeman's pay. If you increase a nurses pay by inflation in 1910 it will be worth 0.16 of a current nurses pay.

Now HYUFD do you see what your plan for the state pension will do?

And are you really sticking by your claim that you would have been better off if your current pay is the 1910 pay for the same job plus inflation?

Earnings rise more than inflation in the long run. It is that simple.

House prices have increased even more than earnings since 1910 and pensioners do not need to pay very high mortgages or rents as they are mostly owner occupiers sitting on in some cases vastly lucrative property assets.

You however would keep higher taxes for mortgage and rent paying earners to subsidise owner occupying pensioners who mostly have private pensions to top up their state pension anyway rather than doing what I would which is targeting any above inflation increase on poorer pensioners via higher Pension Credit and the minority of pensioners still renting via higher housing benefit

I knew this was a mistake. You are just saying what you were saying over and over and over again before.

Just think about it. You say you don't want to get rid of the state pension (and if you did that would be fine position to take - I can respect that), but what you are proposing does get rid of it bit by bit. If what you proposed is put in place and inflation and growth is similar over that period the current state pension of approximately £10,000 would actually be worth about £2,000 (taking a ball park average of the examples I gave and comparing the pension to earnings in the future but expressed in todays terms).

Do you think a state pension of £2000 currently would be acceptable? Can anyone live on that? Because over time that is what will happen.

If you want to save the tax payer money then the retirement age should have been extended earlier, but govts were too scared to bite that bullet until it became inevitable, and made a bit of a hash of it.

Black_Rook said:

Burgessian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

sarissa said:

Hmm...DWP position as stated in the run-up to the 2014 campaign.

That shows, correctly, that state pensions would still be paid in Scotland after independence. Of course they would, unless for some reason the Scottish government post-independence decided to renege on them, which is verging on unthinkable. Equally certainly, it would of course be up to Scottish taxpayers to foot the bill.

This isn't complicated!

I know, but you're dealing with people who think an independent Scotland will be able to set policy for the Governor of Bank England and the Governor will have to follow it, even if it contradicts RUK policy.

The craziness is spreading, here's a former First Minister.

Alex Salmond has claimed that Scotland should go for a "clean break" over debt with the UK during any independence talks.

The former first minister said Alba's position was for the country to pay no share of national debt after separation from the union.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19273429.alex-salmond---scotland-aim-clean-break-debt-uk-future-independence-talks/

But if an independent Scotland goes for that then those Scottish pensions will not be paid by RUK.

I've spent a fair bit of time thinking about the financial implications of Indy and there is no escaping the fact that it would mean austerity on steroids. Just no way of avoiding it. But that is exactly contrary to what is being offered by the SNP and believed by its supporters. A real conundrum.

I continue to maintain that the sole, entire reason for the survival of the Union in 2014 was money, i.e. that a large chunk of the No vote would've been delighted to split if it wasn't for the fact that they thought they'd have to pay for it. The Scottish Government can, and will, stoke any number of grievances and pick any number of fights with the British one, but so long as they can't or won't give a convincing explanation for who is going to fund independence then they'll have an uphill struggle selling it to the voters.

The nightmare scenario for all concerned is that 45% represents the ceiling for all those who are committed enough to independence that they either don't believe that it comes with a price tag or don't care, plus those who are poor enough that they feel they have nothing to lose from rolling the dice. That way lies an endless series of nationalist governments, who are interested in only one thing but lack the ability ever to achieve it.

But the SNP wouldn't keep getting elected on a Sindy vote promise. Not if there is another one soon and it's lost again. They'd have to ditch the promise or relinquish power. Groundhog Day won't apply here as regards the referendum threat.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Not enough flags for my liking.....

https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1413528743864320002?s=20

The Treasury was flying the crusader flag this morning. But it has two flagpoles so can fly the Union Flag as well, which I believe is the official protocol for Government buildings

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

Having returned from chopping wood and given an Ash log a real pummelling I decided stupidly to have one more go with HYUFD on this comparing earnings and inflation topic. This time though rather than using logic I thought I would present a few facts.

Previously I asked HYUFD whether he thought he would be better off if he was paid the salary for his work at 1910 rates plus inflation. He said he would.

Can I suggest HYUFD you get another job because:

a) If you increase the average salary of a man in 1910 by inflation it will be less than a 1/3 of the average salary today. If you do the same for women it will less than 1/7 of the average salary today. And that is based on a 55 hour week in 1910 as well.

b) If you increase a policeman's pay in 1910 by inflation it will be worth 0.23 of a current policeman's pay. If you increase a nurses pay by inflation in 1910 it will be worth 0.16 of a current nurses pay.

Now HYUFD do you see what your plan for the state pension will do?

And are you really sticking by your claim that you would have been better off if your current pay is the 1910 pay for the same job plus inflation?

Earnings rise more than inflation in the long run. It is that simple.

House prices have increased even more than earnings since 1910 and pensioners do not need to pay very high mortgages or rents as they are mostly owner occupiers sitting on in some cases vastly lucrative property assets.

You however would keep higher taxes for mortgage and rent paying earners to subsidise owner occupying pensioners who mostly have private pensions to top up their state pension anyway rather than doing what I would which is targeting any above inflation increase on poorer pensioners via higher Pension Credit and the minority of pensioners still renting via higher housing benefit

I notice you got a like from @viewcode . I might well have done the same in response IF I had actually said any of what you said I said in your 2nd para. However as usual you keep ignoring what I actually post and if you actually read what I actually post you would know my motives are for the protection of those on low incomes and not for the benefit of the well off.

The point of my post is to point out your complete lack of understanding of the maths as also pointed out by @kinabalu

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

Having returned from chopping wood and given an Ash log a real pummelling I decided stupidly to have one more go with HYUFD on this comparing earnings and inflation topic. This time though rather than using logic I thought I would present a few facts.

Previously I asked HYUFD whether he thought he would be better off if he was paid the salary for his work at 1910 rates plus inflation. He said he would.

Can I suggest HYUFD you get another job because:

a) If you increase the average salary of a man in 1910 by inflation it will be less than a 1/3 of the average salary today. If you do the same for women it will less than 1/7 of the average salary today. And that is based on a 55 hour week in 1910 as well.

b) If you increase a policeman's pay in 1910 by inflation it will be worth 0.23 of a current policeman's pay. If you increase a nurses pay by inflation in 1910 it will be worth 0.16 of a current nurses pay.

Now HYUFD do you see what your plan for the state pension will do?

And are you really sticking by your claim that you would have been better off if your current pay is the 1910 pay for the same job plus inflation?

Earnings rise more than inflation in the long run. It is that simple.

House prices have increased even more than earnings since 1910 and pensioners do not need to pay very high mortgages or rents as they are mostly owner occupiers sitting on in some cases vastly lucrative property assets.

You however would keep higher taxes for mortgage and rent paying earners to subsidise owner occupying pensioners who mostly have private pensions to top up their state pension anyway rather than doing what I would which is targeting any above inflation increase on poorer pensioners via higher Pension Credit and the minority of pensioners still renting via higher housing benefit

I knew this was a mistake. You are just saying what you were saying over and over and over again before.

Just think about it. You say you don't want to get rid of the state pension (and if you did that would be fine position to take - I can respect that), but what you are proposing does get rid of it bit by bit. If what you proposed is put in place and inflation and growth is similar over that period the current state pension of approximately £10,000 would actually be worth about £2,000 (taking a ball park average of the examples I gave and comparing the pension to earnings in the future but expressed in todays terms).

Do you think a state pension of £2000 currently would be acceptable? Can anyone live on that? Because over time that is what will happen.

If you want to save the tax payer money then the retirement age should have been extended earlier, but govts were too scared to bite that bullet until it became inevitable, and made a bit of a hash of it.

Nope, increasing the state pension in line with inflation not earnings for the majority of pensioners who own their own houses outright and have no mortgage or rent to pay and substantial private pensions too is not getting rid of it. You on the other hand would keep earners taxes high when they have mortgages and rents to pay to subsidise comfortably off pensioners with an earnings linked pension to top up their substantial private pension with no housing costs to pay.

The retirement age is rising to 67 and as I said you can support the poorest pensioners with above inflation rises in pension credit and housing benefit without a one size fits all earnings linked rise in the state pension

So you just don't understand the maths then?

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

Having returned from chopping wood and given an Ash log a real pummelling I decided stupidly to have one more go with HYUFD on this comparing earnings and inflation topic. This time though rather than using logic I thought I would present a few facts.

Previously I asked HYUFD whether he thought he would be better off if he was paid the salary for his work at 1910 rates plus inflation. He said he would.

Can I suggest HYUFD you get another job because:

a) If you increase the average salary of a man in 1910 by inflation it will be less than a 1/3 of the average salary today. If you do the same for women it will less than 1/7 of the average salary today. And that is based on a 55 hour week in 1910 as well.

b) If you increase a policeman's pay in 1910 by inflation it will be worth 0.23 of a current policeman's pay. If you increase a nurses pay by inflation in 1910 it will be worth 0.16 of a current nurses pay.

Now HYUFD do you see what your plan for the state pension will do?

And are you really sticking by your claim that you would have been better off if your current pay is the 1910 pay for the same job plus inflation?

Earnings rise more than inflation in the long run. It is that simple.

House prices have increased even more than earnings since 1910 and pensioners do not need to pay very high mortgages or rents as they are mostly owner occupiers sitting on in some cases vastly lucrative property assets.

You however would keep higher taxes for mortgage and rent paying earners to subsidise owner occupying pensioners who mostly have private pensions to top up their state pension anyway rather than doing what I would which is targeting any above inflation increase on poorer pensioners via higher Pension Credit and the minority of pensioners still renting via higher housing benefit

I knew this was a mistake. You are just saying what you were saying over and over and over again before.

Just think about it. You say you don't want to get rid of the state pension (and if you did that would be fine position to take - I can respect that), but what you are proposing does get rid of it bit by bit. If what you proposed is put in place and inflation and growth is similar over that period the current state pension of approximately £10,000 would actually be worth about £2,000 (taking a ball park average of the examples I gave and comparing the pension to earnings in the future but expressed in todays terms).

Do you think a state pension of £2000 currently would be acceptable? Can anyone live on that? Because over time that is what will happen.

If you want to save the tax payer money then the retirement age should have been extended earlier, but govts were too scared to bite that bullet until it became inevitable, and made a bit of a hash of it.

I don't disagree with your argument, but worth noting that it is the policy with respect to unemployment benefits - that is when they're uprated at all.

Flatlander said:

kinabalu said:

dixiedean said:

NE moving back to the top of the leader board. Every day now folk testing positive all around me. None seriously ill, but still not pleasant.

A mate of mine, 2 jabs, hardly leaves the house, has just got it.

Neighbour of the in-laws has got it. Teenage son (17/18). Asymptomatic.

Today he was driving around somewhere with his girlfriend and has just gone out again.

Isolation? Ain't happening. Not even the positives, never mind the pings.

This is only going to stop when it burns out (hopefully before too long).

It's the key rationale behind dumping the restrictions now. Delta is loose, it's going to spread everywhere anyway, and the population (or a very large fraction at any rate) has had enough of the rules and will disregard them under any circumstances where they can get away with it. They'll wear masks to go into shops because otherwise the put-upon staff will be obliged to throw them out again, but they're done with masks and bubbles and distancing and apps and counting how many people and households they're with in any setting that's not rigorously policed.

So, best to let it rip and get through the exit wave now. Desperately trying to suppress the thing for a bit longer would mostly delay the inevitable, and the modest additional number of people saved from the disease by getting through more vaccinations would likely be outweighed by the additional economic damage of more restrictions for longer, compounded by shoving more Covid patients through the hospitals once flu has got started.

Besides which, the sole purported rationale for imposing restrictions in the first place was to prevent the healthcare system from collapsing, and not to try to cut the rate of Long Covid or to prevent the postponement of non-urgent operations, and it's important not to allow mission creep from a civil libertarian point of view. If Covid restrictions come to be accepted as the solution to all kinds of other problems then we'll be stuck with some of them forever, and Draconian lockdowns will keep reappearing every time the NHS goes through a rough patch during the Winter. From that point of view in particular, the sooner the rules go, the better.

Gnud said:

malcolmg said:

Gnud said:

malcolmg said:

Philip_Thompson said:

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Rook, HS2 is more popular the further north you go.

If the part connecting London to Birmingham is completed and the northern half cancelled that will not go down well.

MD , depends on where you stop, fact that Scotland is paying part of it and it will never ever reach here means it is far from popular here for certain.

So the Scottish Government is lieing?

The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202000015934/

Well, it's not the English Government that pays for it. So it presumably comes out of UK taxation - ergo our Scottish pockets (rather more than the CI pockets, no douby).

when the UK government increases spending which doesn't affect a devolved nation, that devolved nation receives money, equivalent to its population share, back to spend itself. This is the case with HS2 and Scotland which means that, in effect, all money spent on HS2 which is raised by Scottish taxes will be returned via something called the Barnett formula.

https://fullfact.org/online/hs2-scotland/

Thanks for that - wasn't sure of the situation there.

She is talking bollox Carnyx, they regularly exclude items from being included and HS2 is likely to be one of them. They often exclude large projects spending in England so they don't have to give Scotland any benefit.

It's not "me" it's the Scottish Government and FullFact, but you're the chap who believes there's a vault in the Bank of England with "Scotland's Pension Contributions" in it......

I already posted the relevant part in that they have no clue how much we paid and many ( ie expensive ) projects are excluded from Barnett. As to your other point more lies , I believe the UK pension liabilities lie with the Westminster government and their central bank.
You think they can welch on their responsibilities , surprise surprise. How many contracts did you get.

There are no pensions liabilities. They all come out of the current account.

They are still liabilities. If you have to pay something and pay it cash , just because it does not come out of your bank account does not mean you do not have to pay it. You can try to spin it any way you like but the UK has liability to pay citizens who contributed to state pensions, regardless of where they reside. Hence why people all over the world receive state pensions from UK.

Yes and Scotland is part of the UK.

If Scotland goes independent then Scotland will need to resolve that.

The UK is not just some "other" you can dump your liabilities on while continuing to claim benefits from.

The UK as part of the negotiations will resolve it as part of sharing out all the assets and liabilities etc. You F***ing halfwits cannot seem to grasp that a corrupt Westminster bunch of arseholes can just welch on their liabilities.

What a racist expression!

Eh!

"welch on their liabilities".

Doh ! I should have guessed

Black_Rook said:

Flatlander said:

kinabalu said:

dixiedean said:

NE moving back to the top of the leader board. Every day now folk testing positive all around me. None seriously ill, but still not pleasant.

A mate of mine, 2 jabs, hardly leaves the house, has just got it.

Neighbour of the in-laws has got it. Teenage son (17/18). Asymptomatic.

Today he was driving around somewhere with his girlfriend and has just gone out again.

Isolation? Ain't happening. Not even the positives, never mind the pings.

This is only going to stop when it burns out (hopefully before too long).

It's the key rationale behind dumping the restrictions now. Delta is loose, it's going to spread everywhere anyway, and the population (or a very large fraction at any rate) has had enough of the rules and will disregard them under any circumstances where they can get away with it. They'll wear masks to go into shops because otherwise the put-upon staff will be obliged to throw them out again, but they're done with masks and bubbles and distancing and apps and counting how many people and households they're with in any setting that's not rigorously policed.

So, best to let it rip and get through the exit wave now. Desperately trying to suppress the thing for a bit longer would mostly delay the inevitable, and the modest additional number of people saved from the disease by getting through more vaccinations would likely be outweighed by the additional economic damage of more restrictions for longer, compounded by shoving more Covid patients through the hospitals once flu has got started.

Besides which, the sole purported rationale for imposing restrictions in the first place was to prevent the healthcare system from collapsing, and not to try to cut the rate of Long Covid or to prevent the postponement of non-urgent operations, and it's important not to allow mission creep from a civil libertarian point of view. If Covid restrictions come to be accepted as the solution to all kinds of other problems then we'll be stuck with some of them forever, and Draconian lockdowns will keep reappearing every time the NHS goes through a rough patch during the Winter. From that point of view in particular, the sooner the rules go, the better.

Yes, totally agree. I'd have been pretty angry in the first lockdown if I'd seen that.

Now? Meh. I'm still avoiding risky places just because, but I don't really care what anyone else does.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Burgessian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

sarissa said:

Hmm...DWP position as stated in the run-up to the 2014 campaign.

That shows, correctly, that state pensions would still be paid in Scotland after independence. Of course they would, unless for some reason the Scottish government post-independence decided to renege on them, which is verging on unthinkable. Equally certainly, it would of course be up to Scottish taxpayers to foot the bill.

This isn't complicated!

I know, but you're dealing with people who think an independent Scotland will be able to set policy for the Governor of Bank England and the Governor will have to follow it, even if it contradicts RUK policy.

The craziness is spreading, here's a former First Minister.

Alex Salmond has claimed that Scotland should go for a "clean break" over debt with the UK during any independence talks.

The former first minister said Alba's position was for the country to pay no share of national debt after separation from the union.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19273429.alex-salmond---scotland-aim-clean-break-debt-uk-future-independence-talks/

But if an independent Scotland goes for that then those Scottish pensions will not be paid by RUK.

I've spent a fair bit of time thinking about the financial implications of Indy and there is no escaping the fact that it would mean austerity on steroids. Just no way of avoiding it. But that is exactly contrary to what is being offered by the SNP and believed by its supporters. A real conundrum.

My day job now includes preparing for a Indyref2/Scottish independence, the implications are staggering.

I suspect Scots may end getting the worst of all worlds.

For example mortgages have to be paid in sterling if Scots go for their own currency and that depreciates badly then you can the mortgages of Scots going up by a lot overnight.

In a past job I used to specialise in sports media rights and also mobile telephony, that's going to have major impacts as well.

Calls to RUK may end up getting charged at international calling rates.

So when you ring up to ask why Sky/BT aren't showing the football or new HBO show on Sky Atlantic then there's going to several shocks.

True.

Though given as long as there remains a Tory government an indyref2 will not be granted may be some time for it to be tested if ever.

At the moment unless there is a Labour government dependent on the SNP for confidence and supply we may never get an indyref2, 2014 would have been the one chance the UK government ever allowed Scottish nationalists to have for independence

I assume you just ignore the countless posters who keep asking you to stop copying and pasting the same mantra, which to be honest is boring

@TSE is making interesting and very relevant points on Scottish Independence and adds to the debate that will continue into the future and, of course, there may come an optimum time in the next few years to allow an Independence referendum and actually win it for the Union

Please try to add to the debate and not continue to embarrass yourself

Who is most deluded HYFUD or Big G thinking TSE makes interesting and relevant points on Scotland.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Burgessian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

sarissa said:

Hmm...DWP position as stated in the run-up to the 2014 campaign.

That shows, correctly, that state pensions would still be paid in Scotland after independence. Of course they would, unless for some reason the Scottish government post-independence decided to renege on them, which is verging on unthinkable. Equally certainly, it would of course be up to Scottish taxpayers to foot the bill.

This isn't complicated!

I know, but you're dealing with people who think an independent Scotland will be able to set policy for the Governor of Bank England and the Governor will have to follow it, even if it contradicts RUK policy.

The craziness is spreading, here's a former First Minister.

Alex Salmond has claimed that Scotland should go for a "clean break" over debt with the UK during any independence talks.

The former first minister said Alba's position was for the country to pay no share of national debt after separation from the union.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19273429.alex-salmond---scotland-aim-clean-break-debt-uk-future-independence-talks/

But if an independent Scotland goes for that then those Scottish pensions will not be paid by RUK.

I've spent a fair bit of time thinking about the financial implications of Indy and there is no escaping the fact that it would mean austerity on steroids. Just no way of avoiding it. But that is exactly contrary to what is being offered by the SNP and believed by its supporters. A real conundrum.

My day job now includes preparing for a Indyref2/Scottish independence, the implications are staggering.

I suspect Scots may end getting the worst of all worlds.

For example mortgages have to be paid in sterling if Scots go for their own currency or go rogue and that depreciates badly then you can the mortgages of Scots going up by a lot overnight.

In a past job I used to specialise in sports media rights and also mobile telephony, that's going to have major impacts as well.

Calls to RUK may end up getting charged at international calling rates.

So when you ring up to ask why Sky/BT aren't showing the football or new HBO show on Sky Atlantic then there's going to several shocks.

LOL. utter bollox, our resident currency expert talks mince. What if the pound goes badly our mortgages will be peanuts you halfwit. Fantasy economics for dummies right enough.

Richard_Nabavi said:

sarissa said:

Hmm...DWP position as stated in the run-up to the 2014 campaign.

That shows, correctly, that state pensions would still be paid in Scotland after independence. Of course they would, unless for some reason the Scottish government post-independence decided to renege on them, which is verging on unthinkable. Equally certainly, it would of course be up to Scottish taxpayers to foot the bill.

This isn't complicated!

The impartial DWP , PMSL.

Black_Rook said:

Burgessian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

sarissa said:

Hmm...DWP position as stated in the run-up to the 2014 campaign.

That shows, correctly, that state pensions would still be paid in Scotland after independence. Of course they would, unless for some reason the Scottish government post-independence decided to renege on them, which is verging on unthinkable. Equally certainly, it would of course be up to Scottish taxpayers to foot the bill.

This isn't complicated!

I know, but you're dealing with people who think an independent Scotland will be able to set policy for the Governor of Bank England and the Governor will have to follow it, even if it contradicts RUK policy.

The craziness is spreading, here's a former First Minister.

Alex Salmond has claimed that Scotland should go for a "clean break" over debt with the UK during any independence talks.

The former first minister said Alba's position was for the country to pay no share of national debt after separation from the union.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19273429.alex-salmond---scotland-aim-clean-break-debt-uk-future-independence-talks/

But if an independent Scotland goes for that then those Scottish pensions will not be paid by RUK.

I've spent a fair bit of time thinking about the financial implications of Indy and there is no escaping the fact that it would mean austerity on steroids. Just no way of avoiding it. But that is exactly contrary to what is being offered by the SNP and believed by its supporters. A real conundrum.

I continue to maintain that the sole, entire reason for the survival of the Union in 2014 was money, i.e. that a large chunk of the No vote would've been delighted to split if it wasn't for the fact that they thought they'd have to pay for it. The Scottish Government can, and will, stoke any number of grievances and pick any number of fights with the British one, but so long as they can't or won't give a convincing explanation for who is going to fund independence then they'll have an uphill struggle selling it to the voters.

The nightmare scenario for all concerned is that 45% represents the ceiling for all those who are committed enough to independence that they either don't believe that it comes with a price tag or don't care, plus those who are poor enough that they feel they have nothing to lose from rolling the dice. That way lies an endless series of nationalist governments, who are interested in only one thing but lack the ability ever to achieve it.

More absolute bollox from you , it was down to pensioners , English and European votes , first lot are dying off, second was being twisted and the other wanting to remain in EU.
It is amazing the number of economic experts on here who sound as if they could not count the change in their pockets.

"‘The next stage is to recognise apps or certification from other countries’ – Grant Shapps".

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/vaccination-quarantine-grant-shapps-travel-b1880935.html

Does this mean that an unvaccinated British person will be able to go to an EU country, take a lateral flow test, and - assuming the result is negative - get the EU digital Covid certificate (which can be on paper),[*] travel around the EU a bit, and then return to Britain, show the certificate, and avoid having to quarantine?

(*) Or take an EU test and get an EU cert in Britain before departure, tabloid "don't want any of that foreign muck 'ere" opposition notwithstanding.

williamglenn said:

malcolmg said:

Philip_Thompson said:

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Rook, HS2 is more popular the further north you go.

If the part connecting London to Birmingham is completed and the northern half cancelled that will not go down well.

MD , depends on where you stop, fact that Scotland is paying part of it and it will never ever reach here means it is far from popular here for certain.

So the Scottish Government is lieing?

The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202000015934/

Well, it's not the English Government that pays for it. So it presumably comes out of UK taxation - ergo our Scottish pockets (rather more than the CI pockets, no douby).

when the UK government increases spending which doesn't affect a devolved nation, that devolved nation receives money, equivalent to its population share, back to spend itself. This is the case with HS2 and Scotland which means that, in effect, all money spent on HS2 which is raised by Scottish taxes will be returned via something called the Barnett formula.

https://fullfact.org/online/hs2-scotland/

Thanks for that - wasn't sure of the situation there.

She is talking bollox Carnyx, they regularly exclude items from being included and HS2 is likely to be one of them. They often exclude large projects spending in England so they don't have to give Scotland any benefit.

It's not "me" it's the Scottish Government and FullFact, but you're the chap who believes there's a vault in the Bank of England with "Scotland's Pension Contributions" in it......

I already posted the relevant part in that they have no clue how much we paid and many ( ie expensive ) projects are excluded from Barnett. As to your other point more lies , I believe the UK pension liabilities lie with the Westminster government and their central bank.
You think they can welch on their responsibilities , surprise surprise. How many contracts did you get.

There are no pensions liabilities. They all come out of the current account.

They are still liabilities. If you have to pay something and pay it cash , just because it does not come out of your bank account does not mean you do not have to pay it. You can try to spin it any way you like but the UK has liability to pay citizens who contributed to state pensions, regardless of where they reside. Hence why people all over the world receive state pensions from UK.

Yes and Scotland is part of the UK.

If Scotland goes independent then Scotland will need to resolve that.

The UK is not just some "other" you can dump your liabilities on while continuing to claim benefits from.

The UK as part of the negotiations will resolve it as part of sharing out all the assets and liabilities etc. You F***ing halfwits cannot seem to grasp that a corrupt Westminster bunch of arseholes can just welch on their liabilities.

The UK will be on both sides of the table.

I’m old enough to remember when you made vaguely positive noises about Indy. That road to Damascus has lots of twists and turns it would appear.