politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If it’s an IndyRef YES then CON can afford to lose 9 seats
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If it’s an IndyRef YES then CON can afford to lose 9 seats at GE2015 knowing it’d have a majority after partition
The plan is that the actual separation should take place in March 2016 which could have an impact on what happens in the aftermath of next May’s UK general election. For clearly on separation Scotland’s 59 Westminster seats will cease to exist and the commons will be reduced from 650 seats to 591.
0
Comments
-
First0
-
Calling Sunil....0
-
And nice use of the word Partition on the 67th anniversary of Partition.
Which happened under Labour and led to the deaths of nearly a million people.
Ergo Labour can't be in charge of the partition of the UK.0 -
In the event of a No, what does that do to SNP performance at Westminster, would the Tories see any kind of gains given that people will be resigned to their presence in politics for at least another 30 years or would the SNP vote hold strong? With a No I think there is a chance of Tory gains in Scotland against the SNP and the Lib Dems, maybe 5-7 seats on top of their one stronghold.0
-
OldKingCole
Do you have the link to that NHS story?
Never mind - I found it0 -
I think a bigger issue than raw numbers would be that the 2015 election would become almost entirely about who's tougher on the Scots when it comes to negotiating (if Yes wins, of course).
Labour recently had a Scottish PM and 13 years of Scottish Chancellors. The Conservatives have 1 Scottish MP. That could damage Labour in England and Wales.
Plus, Osborne being see as a git would be a positive. Everybody would be willing to believe he'd be a tight-fisted sod with the Scots.
Then we have the nightmare scenario of a Labour General Election victory but with a majority contingent on Scottish MPs. To avoid that, England would have to go blue (I also think it'd help the SNP north of the border).0 -
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jennifer-gunter/nhs-emergency-room-_b_5677618.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&ir=UKPatrick said:OldKingCole
Do you have the link to that NHS story?0 -
The divorce will not take place in March 2016. There's far too much to sort out.
But whoever wins next year will need to create a Convention in order to develop a new constitutional settlement either for the rUK or the whole UK. That should include all parties and what eventually emerges should be put to a referendum to ensure that it has full buy-in and will not be subject to continual change depending on who is in power at Westminster. Whatever happens next month we are not going to be carrying on as we are.0 -
OldKingCole said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jennifer-gunter/nhs-emergency-room-_b_5677618.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&ir=UKPatrick said:OldKingCole
Do you have the link to that NHS story?
Always good to see someone get proper care. What is interesting is that a hospital in the heart of tourist London is dis-organised enough that it is unable to even charge patients with insurance.
0 -
If it is No, imagine how they will react. Do you think they'll accept the result and move on? Conspiracy theories will abound. There will be a very high level of resentment among, say, 20% of the Scottish population. It won't be a nice place to be for a while.SeanT said:Plus all the Scots Labour pundits, thinkers, peers, activists, unions, journos, ex-MPs, and donors would also be departing, as well as the MPs. It would be a hideous trauma for Labour. Like losing a leg.
But it ain't gonna happen. I cannot believe that ALL the pollsters are getting it wrong, and ALL the bookies are taking stupid risks.
As of this moment Yes is 11/2 at Betfred and NO is 1/10.
The fact that YESSNPers still believe they're gonna win is just massive confirmation bias, not evidence of secret, on-the-ground-knowledge. They so want a YES result they will convince themselves it's a dead cert, in the face of all the evidence. These people have spent their lives working to this moment, how could they not be desperate for it to happen, and how could this desperation not cloud their judgment?
0 -
The general election next May would be very odd given that partition was due to take place in less than a year.
Odd? It would be a farce. I'd almost prefer that it was delayed until after Scottish independence.0 -
I sincerely doubt there will be a general election during the independence negotiations. I can see two potential alternatives:
(1) The GE is postponed for a year or so. Given how hard this would be to do, it would clearly require the explicit agreement from all major Westminster parties. However, if it was feasible, it would allow the independence negotiations to be conducted in an orderly fashion, followed by Scottish independence day, the publication of the rUK manifestos and then the rUK GE.
(2) The independence negotiations are concluded before April 2015 (almost a year before the SNP's proposed deadline). This amount of time is actually quite similar to what happened in other European countries separating, such as Czechoslovakia. Obviously these negotiations could then only focus on the real necessities (borders, citizenship, national debts etc.) -- lots of other issues would have to be decided post-independence in bilateral international negotiations.
If the GE takes place as planned in May 2015 and independence happens in 2016 or later, I fear the rUK parties will enter a bidding war on being toughest on Scotland (as predicted/threatened by Nigel Farage in Andrew Neil's excellent documentary two nights ago), and this would make serious negotiations almost impossible, which again would probably lead Scotland to declare UDI in 2016, stating that the UK government was breaking its word made in the Edinburgh Agreement to conduct the negotiations in good faith. A UDI would lead to the rUK being saddled with the entire national debt and no access to the nuclear weapons in Faslane. In other words, a complete nightmare scenario.0 -
I wasn't praising the German economy, I was criticising UK management and its short-termism. We have seen a long-term decline in our exports, low-level private sector investment in R&D, abysmal overseas patenting activity and falls in productivity. And that's largely down to decisions taken in British boardrooms and banks. It's not good enough.SeanT said:ONtopic I note that all those people, e.g. Southam et al, who were roundly praising the German economy the other day, and dissing the UK, have gone strangely quiet on the subject, with the latest data out of the eurozone.
For comparison:
GDP growth in last three months (annualised): Germany -0.8%, Italy -0.8%, France 0%, United Kingdom +3.2%.
0 -
For comparison:
UKIP's critique just seems to get more accurate by the day.0 -
Mr. Twid, welcome to pb.com.
I do not think the election date will change. Early conclusion of negotiation is unlikely because there's so much to unravel, and if it were postponed I think many voters would be less than happy.0 -
O/T times 2
@Speedy, FPT you mentioned trying to get something published. May I suggest you have a conversation with Morris Dancer, gent of this parish, and, if you can find him, Andy Cooke, occasional gent of this parish.
@TSE : Your presence is required on the diplomacy board in the next 17 hours. Miss this deadline like you did the last and your popularity ain't half going to drop.0 -
Since it's high likely No will win, most of the breakup scenarios are irrelevant.
More interesting is when No wins, the pressure for there to be a new settlement to address the current political imbalance (with Scotland having their own parliament but England not) will become very high.
Scotland may well get a form of a Devomax, but in return England will get a more democratic solution as well. That itself may reduce the benefit of having lots of Scottish MPs anyway.
0 -
Yes is pigeon droppings from birds that have eaten the burnt toast crumbs .0
-
The same 5-7 seats easterross was confidently saying the Conservatives would gain in Scotland in 2010 ?MaxPB said:In the event of a No, what does that do to SNP performance at Westminster, would the Tories see any kind of gains given that people will be resigned to their presence in politics for at least another 30 years or would the SNP vote hold strong? With a No I think there is a chance of Tory gains in Scotland against the SNP and the Lib Dems, maybe 5-7 seats on top of their one stronghold.
0 -
I hope that No wins, but there is a part of me that would really like to see how a divorce would be managed. It would be absolutely fascinating with very few precedents to go on. You'd have a hugely imbalanced negotiation, with one side holding just about every single trump card. So how both parties managed it all would be something to see.0
-
twid
UDI would be worse for Scotland. It would be saying 'I'm not going to negotiate'. So overnight their banks would have no lender of last resort, Scotland would have no physical mechanism to borrow or pay for public services, salaries and pensions would go unpaid, and they'd have made an implacable enemy of the rUK. It would be an almost instant meltdown. A 'run on the bank' of the national finances. They'd be literally incapable of settling bills as the Treasury in London simply could not replenish the bank accounts of Scottish public bodies. A Scottish entry into the world would be bankruptcy, riots, deaths and tumbleweed blowing down the Royal Mile. A more gargantuan fu<k-up could not be dreamt up.
Sure the rUK would have to assume liability for the 8% of debt that is Scotland's and the submarines might have no nuclear weapons to put in them. But the day to day impact in Kidderminster would be essentially zip. In Kirkcaldy they'd not be able to pay for food.0 -
What a day for pbc - Roger returns (unless he's been back before and I missed him) and Mark Senior turns into Eric Cantona!MarkSenior said:Yes is pigeon droppings from birds that have eaten the burnt toast crumbs .
0 -
Ha Ha Ha , dream onMaxPB said:In the event of a No, what does that do to SNP performance at Westminster, would the Tories see any kind of gains given that people will be resigned to their presence in politics for at least another 30 years or would the SNP vote hold strong? With a No I think there is a chance of Tory gains in Scotland against the SNP and the Lib Dems, maybe 5-7 seats on top of their one stronghold.
0 -
Or better still - please bet on it!malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , dream onMaxPB said:In the event of a No, what does that do to SNP performance at Westminster, would the Tories see any kind of gains given that people will be resigned to their presence in politics for at least another 30 years or would the SNP vote hold strong? With a No I think there is a chance of Tory gains in Scotland against the SNP and the Lib Dems, maybe 5-7 seats on top of their one stronghold.
0 -
SO , it is always a nice place to be.SouthamObserver said:
If it is No, imagine how they will react. Do you think they'll accept the result and move on? Conspiracy theories will abound. There will be a very high level of resentment among, say, 20% of the Scottish population. It won't be a nice place to be for a while.SeanT said:Plus all the Scots Labour pundits, thinkers, peers, activists, unions, journos, ex-MPs, and donors would also be departing, as well as the MPs. It would be a hideous trauma for Labour. Like losing a leg.
But it ain't gonna happen. I cannot believe that ALL the pollsters are getting it wrong, and ALL the bookies are taking stupid risks.
As of this moment Yes is 11/2 at Betfred and NO is 1/10.
The fact that YESSNPers still believe they're gonna win is just massive confirmation bias, not evidence of secret, on-the-ground-knowledge. They so want a YES result they will convince themselves it's a dead cert, in the face of all the evidence. These people have spent their lives working to this moment, how could they not be desperate for it to happen, and how could this desperation not cloud their judgment?0 -
The process to negotiate separation won't be agreed by March 2016 never mind the negotiations being concluded. Six years would be a sensible timeframe with independence and GE coinciding in 2020 and a currency union for the first four years of independence...0
-
True, and it would be a good thing if the NHS did reclaim the costs from foreign insurers. They may do but I doubt it at leats not in any systematic way.JonathanD said:OldKingCole said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jennifer-gunter/nhs-emergency-room-_b_5677618.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&ir=UKPatrick said:OldKingCole
Do you have the link to that NHS story?
Always good to see someone get proper care. What is interesting is that a hospital in the heart of tourist London is dis-organised enough that it is unable to even charge patients with insurance.
I have to say though the system in the states isn't always that much better. A friend of mine on a holiday in Texas was struck down with appalling stomach pain and was whipped into a local A&E. Diagnosed as gall stones it meant a stay in hospital plus an operation to remove them. She had nothing but praise for the treatment and the conditions in the hospital but, though she handed over her insurance details, never heard a thing from the insurance company or the hospital.0 -
If either side wins by less than 10% I think there should be a referendum every 5 years until they do0
-
@Morris_Dancer, thanks for your welcome. You wrote:
I agree a postponement of the GE is quite unlikely, but I don't think it's unrealistic for the independence negotiations to be conducted swiftly. Firstly, most (all?) previous cases of such negotiations have happened in six months or less, and secondly, the alternatives are worse.Morris_Dancer said:
I do not think the election date will change. Early conclusion of negotiation is unlikely because there's so much to unravel, and if it were postponed I think many voters would be less than happy.
What do you think will happen to the negotiations if for instance the new government has made it part of its manifesto that the nuclear weapons must stay in Scotland till 2030 -- something which it would be completely impossible for any Scottish Government to accept? You can't just put independence on hold until the Scots agree. Scotland would declare UDI if that happened.
Also, I'd argue the UK would be almost ungovernable after a Yes vote. To take but one example, there's no way the UK government could have privatised the Royal Mail if Scotland had already voted Yes, given the Scottish Government's opposition to privatisation.0 -
Mr. Twid, you're very welcome.
A UDI would be messy, and not a good start for Scotland.
Mind you, I feel this likely an academic discussion, given the polls. I certainly hope so.0 -
Watching Andrew Neils doc.. seems to me the NO team are as vague about post Indy Nukes as Salmond is about the currency
and the iPlayer volume goes up to 11.. annoying, but forgivable if a nod to Spinal tap0 -
The degree by which any NO vote percentage exceeds the YES vote percentage will inevitably impact on the time period before there is the prospect of another independence referendum.
Something along these lines perhaps:
NO Majority 0% - 15% .......... 10 - 15 years.
NO Majority 15% - 25% .........15 - 25 years
NO Majority >25% ................. 25 - 35 years0 -
Eh??? So a 54/46 vote for YES wouldn't count and they try again in 2019! Malcolm's head would explode.isam said:If either side wins by less than 10% I think there should be a referendum every 5 years until they do
0 -
Absolutely agree Mr. Observer. What should be done about it though? Diagnosing the problem is the easy bit, fixing it is another matter.SouthamObserver said:
I wasn't praising the German economy, I was criticising UK management and its short-termism. We have seen a long-term decline in our exports, low-level private sector investment in R&D, abysmal overseas patenting activity and falls in productivity. And that's largely down to decisions taken in British boardrooms and banks. It's not good enough.SeanT said:ONtopic I note that all those people, e.g. Southam et al, who were roundly praising the German economy the other day, and dissing the UK, have gone strangely quiet on the subject, with the latest data out of the eurozone.
For comparison:
GDP growth in last three months (annualised): Germany -0.8%, Italy -0.8%, France 0%, United Kingdom +3.2%.0 -
To be fair to Rexel, the modern statehood is a little more complicated now than it was in 1921.Neil said:
Dont be ridiculous. A truce in the Irish War of Independence was called in July 1921, the Irish Free State Constitution Act became law in December 1922. And that was in far more difficult circumstances.Rexel56 said:Six years would be a sensible timeframe
0 -
So Labour would have to win a majority of at least 24 next year to retain any majority in an rUK parliament...
Similarly, they must finish >40 seats ahead to retain largest party status.0 -
-
The world was very different in the early 1920's Mr. Neil, the State was very much less embodied in the daily life of companies and individuals, and there were no damn computers holding the records. What might have been easy in 1921/22 will be a much, much more difficult proposition in 2015/16.Neil said:
Dont be ridiculous. A truce in the Irish War of Independence was called in July 1921, the Irish Free State Constitution Act became law in December 1922. And that was in far more difficult circumstances.Rexel56 said:Six years would be a sensible timeframe
It could be done quick and dirty, but that would be very bad for the Scots.0 -
Well obviously those aren't the rules, but I think if either side lost very narrowly there would be justified resentment from the losers and a feeling of being trapped with no way outPatrick said:
Eh??? So a 54/46 vote for YES wouldn't count and they try again in 2019! Malcolm's head would explode.isam said:If either side wins by less than 10% I think there should be a referendum every 5 years until they do
0 -
Clearly not seen as a priority task by management. Or even something to concerned about when everything else is running well.JonathanD said:OldKingCole said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jennifer-gunter/nhs-emergency-room-_b_5677618.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&ir=UKPatrick said:OldKingCole
Do you have the link to that NHS story?
Always good to see someone get proper care. What is interesting is that a hospital in the heart of tourist London is dis-organised enough that it is unable to even charge patients with insurance.0 -
Interesting thought , would also allow more time to sort the Trident issue and makes sensible timescale to sort out what needs split and what makes sense to keep unified going forward.Rexel56 said:The process to negotiate separation won't be agreed by March 2016 never mind the negotiations being concluded. Six years would be a sensible timeframe with independence and GE coinciding in 2020 and a currency union for the first four years of independence...
0 -
Anyone in their late 30s early 40s remember a mad/zany German scientist on a BBC2 show from the early 80s??
John Curtice lookalike!!0 -
Not being complete morons, the UK parties wouldn't make manifesto promises about things that were going to happen in what would then by a foreign country.twid said:
What do you think will happen to the negotiations if for instance the new government has made it part of its manifesto that the nuclear weapons must stay in Scotland till 2030 -- something which it would be completely impossible for any Scottish Government to accept? You can't just put independence on hold until the Scots agree. Scotland would declare UDI if that happened.
Say there had been a yes vote in 2011 but separation wasn't completing until 2015, presumably the government would have gone ahead and broken up the Royal Mail into a Scottish part and an rUK part, then it could have privatised the English part. It complicates things a little bit, but it wouldn't be impossible.twid said:
Also, I'd argue the UK would be almost ungovernable after a Yes vote. To take but one example, there's no way the UK government could have privatised the Royal Mail if Scotland had already voted Yes, given the Scottish Government's opposition to privatisation.0 -
Well, exactly... The circumstances are incomparable...Neil said:
Dont be ridiculous. A truce in the Irish War of Independence was called in July 1921, the Irish Free State Constitution Act became law in December 1922. And that was in far more difficult circumstances.Rexel56 said:Six years would be a sensible timeframe
0 -
Mr. Tokyo:
"Not being complete morons..."
I think I've spotted the flaw in your post
0 -
0
-
Perhaps, but the timeframe and expense of relocation is a purely political decision. In times of war it could be done almost overnight. Sail the subs to Devonport. Transport the weapons not in subs to a nearby military storage facility (Aldershot?). Keep calm and carry on.isam said:Watching Andrew Neils doc.. seems to me the NO team are as vague about post Indy Nukes as Salmond is about the currency
The real issue here is regulatory. We wouldn't now move them to Devonport because Devonport does not have nuclear weapons storage safety certification. The 'billions' quoted as the cost of moving is driven by an assumption of the pace, complexity and bureaucracy of doing anything in the civil service and of building like for like replicas of Faslane's facilities elsewhere. But that is a decision not a given.
For example the actual dock the subs moor against (and from which weapons are loaded/unloaded) is not a physical part of Scotland! It is large floating concrete Mulberry Harbour affair that could be tugged to Devonport.
Politicians and civil servants go 'hmm, very hard, very slow, very expensive'. Right up until one with authority (PM Dave, PM Redward?) says "Bollocks. Move the subs, move the weapons and store them somewhere physically secure, pass legislation to make this legal. Get on with it."0 -
A mistake the media keep making year after year is quoting the English and Welsh prison population and describing it as the British prison population.
The Times did it again a couple of days ago in their editorial. They said the British prison population was around 85,000. In fact there are roughly another 8,000 prisoners in Scotland (and incidentally around 1,500 in Northern Ireland). The correct number for Britain is currently 85,795 + 7,848 = 93,643. This means quoting the figure as 85,000 is 10% less than the true figure.
http://www.howardleague.org/weekly-prison-watch/
http://www.sps.gov.uk/Publications/ScottishPrisonPopulation.aspx0 -
Vaguely, but not really, on topic, I posted yesterday about the numbers of voters which went to electing each MP for the two major parties in Scotland and England in 2010. Given some positive comments, I extended this analysis back to 2005. This was the notorious election when the Conservatives outpolled Labour in England, but the Socialists won more seats there. According to the figures I found:
GB
Labour 9.568m votes, 356 MPs = 26875 votes to elect an MP
Conservatives 8.782m votes, 198 MPs = 44355 votes to elect an MP
England
Labour 8.050m votes, 286 MPs = 28148 votes to elect an MP
Conservatives 8.115m, 194 MPs = 41829 votes to elect an MP
Scotland
Labour 922,402 votes, 41 MPs = 22497 votes to elect an MP
Conservatives 369,388 votes, 1 MP = 369,388 votes to elect an MP.
The really interesting finding for me was the difference in the English ratios between 2005 and 2010. In 2010, as I mentioned in my post yesterday evening, the Conservatives needed about 10% FEWER votes to elect an English MP than Labour (33,360 vs 36,871) while in 2005, the Conservatives needed almost 50% MORE votes than Labour to elect an English MP (41,829 vs 28148). So clearly the distortions/quirks/benefits/whatever of first past the post vs "pure" PR are not constant over time, and can swing hugely between elections.
Incidientally, when I went onto the BBC's website, I could find 2005 election results for Scotland, Wales, each of the English regions and the UK as a whole, but the link for England did not work. Why is that so appropriate?0 -
To put things into perspective:-
At present, to reach a majority, Labour needs to win 68/374 of the non-Labour seats (exc. NI), or 18.2% of the available seats.
In rUK, they would need to win 79/356, or 22.2% of the available seats.
That's a proportionate increase of 22.1%
John Curtice reckons that requires an extra 1% swing, or 2% lead...
0 -
Mr. Fishing, welcome to pb.com.0
-
Indeed - in the Free State you had two sides of the debate willing to go to war with each other (and with the Unionists and with the rUK again if it came to it). Nothing anywhere near so complicated or difficult in the current circumstances. Issues of sharing national debt / currency / military assets all arose in 1921 / 1922 and were dealt with in that timeframe. Absolutely no reason it would take 6 years now.Rexel56 said:
Well, exactly... The circumstances are incomparable...Neil said:
Dont be ridiculous. A truce in the Irish War of Independence was called in July 1921, the Irish Free State Constitution Act became law in December 1922. And that was in far more difficult circumstances.Rexel56 said:Six years would be a sensible timeframe
0 -
FPT
1) If the Syrian army is using home-made barrel bombs with home-made explosives and those explosives don't go off then they are likely going to give off nasty fumes of one kind or another.
2) QE is life support for the banks. It's not helping the wider economy because it's not designed to help the wider economy.
3) The actual economic problem is the over dominance of banksta oligarchs in western economies and in particular their desire to move all production where the cheapest labour is. The fundamental flaw in this is if all the supply side of the equation has no money where is the demand going to come from?
It's very simple but because the banksta oligarchs have bought both sides of the political argument nobody points it out. The other problem is if/when they get it they'll all want the other oligarchs to spread their production around or pay their workers more but not them.
4) The Gulf states on team petrodollar - with or without US assent or encouragement - have been funding the various anti-Assad groups including Isis although I suspect they panicked and stopped when Isis blew back into Iraq. On top of that the US flooding Syria with weapons means the price goes down so anyone with cash will be able to trade for those US weapons.
0 -
Mr. G. such a time scale makes more sense than 2016. As we have discussed before, its not the politics its the practicalities of separation that is the tricky bit. Where is that data, what format is it in, how do we get it to where it needs to be for the new world and in what format. Just setting up a Scottish DVLA would take years and costs tens of millions.malcolmg said:
Interesting thought , would also allow more time to sort the Trident issue and makes sensible timescale to sort out what needs split and what makes sense to keep unified going forward.Rexel56 said:The process to negotiate separation won't be agreed by March 2016 never mind the negotiations being concluded. Six years would be a sensible timeframe with independence and GE coinciding in 2020 and a currency union for the first four years of independence...
As I keep saying it could be done quick and dirty but I don't think Scotland would be happy with the result.0 -
If the rUK parties are sensible and write manifestos that are sufficiently vague to allow for real negotiations, it might not be a problem. However, I have a feeling they might not all act sensibly a few months after a Yes vote. I hope I'm wrong, though.edmundintokyo said:
Not being complete morons, the UK parties wouldn't make manifesto promises about things that were going to happen in what would then by a foreign country.
Yes, fair enough, that would work. However, there are other areas where it's almost impossible to implement separate solutions for Scotland and the rUK without actually making Scotland independent first. For instance, what would happen if Westminster wanted to introduce VAT on food and Scotland disagreed?edmundintokyo said:
Say there had been a yes vote in 2011 but separation wasn't completing until 2015, presumably the government would have gone ahead and broken up the Royal Mail into a Scottish part and an rUK part, then it could have privatised the English part. It complicates things a little bit, but it wouldn't be impossible.0 -
Nuclear weapons were stored at English naval bases not that long ago and that was not regarded as that much of a big deal including by the people who lived nearby. As you say the issue of the relocation of Faslane/Coulport is one of political will, no more.Patrick said:
Perhaps, but the timeframe and expense of relocation is a purely political decision. In times of war it could be done almost overnight. Sail the subs to Devonport. Transport the weapons not in subs to a nearby military storage facility (Aldershot?). Keep calm and carry on.isam said:Watching Andrew Neils doc.. seems to me the NO team are as vague about post Indy Nukes as Salmond is about the currency
The real issue here is regulatory. We wouldn't now move them to Devonport because Devonport does not have nuclear weapons storage safety certification. The 'billions' quoted as the cost of moving is driven by an assumption of the pace, complexity and bureaucracy of doing anything in the civil service and of building like for like replicas of Faslane's facilities elsewhere. But that is a decision not a given.
For example the actual dock the subs moor against (and from which weapons are loaded/unloaded) is not a physical part of Scotland! It is large floating concrete Mulberry Harbour affair that could be tugged to Devonport.
Politicians and civil servants go 'hmm, very hard, very slow, very expensive'. Right up until one with authority (PM Dave, PM Redward?) says "Bollocks. Move the subs, move the weapons and store them somewhere physically secure, pass legislation to make this legal. Get on with it."0 -
As usual the picture looks completely different depending on the viewpoint.
On the one hand, John Curtis says Scotland leaving means only a 1% extra swing is needed for Labour to win a majority.
On the other hand, the Tories already have a majority if Scotland leaves the Union.
Pretty big difference between those two ways of looking at things.0 -
Scotland wouldn't be independent yet so Scotland would have VAT on food, then they'd repeal it when they became independent (*).twid said:For instance, what would happen if Westminster wanted to introduce VAT on food and Scotland disagreed?
(*) They wouldn't really repeal it, because it would be the kind of good, sensible policy that's hard to introduce, but once introduced never gets repealed.0 -
It looks like YES is on target to win, but if the opposite were to happen then the subs would be moved to America to where they go for training and test firing now. All IMHO of course.Patrick said:
Perhaps, but the timeframe and expense of relocation is a purely political decision. In times of war it could be done almost overnight. Sail the subs to Devonport. Transport the weapons not in subs to a nearby military storage facility (Aldershot?). Keep calm and carry on.isam said:Watching Andrew Neils doc.. seems to me the NO team are as vague about post Indy Nukes as Salmond is about the currency
The real issue here is regulatory. We wouldn't now move them to Devonport because Devonport does not have nuclear weapons storage safety certification. The 'billions' quoted as the cost of moving is driven by an assumption of the pace, complexity and bureaucracy of doing anything in the civil service and of building like for like replicas of Faslane's facilities elsewhere. But that is a decision not a given.
For example the actual dock the subs moor against (and from which weapons are loaded/unloaded) is not a physical part of Scotland! It is large floating concrete Mulberry Harbour affair that could be tugged to Devonport.
Politicians and civil servants go 'hmm, very hard, very slow, very expensive'. Right up until one with authority (PM Dave, PM Redward?) says "Bollocks. Move the subs, move the weapons and store them somewhere physically secure, pass legislation to make this legal. Get on with it."0 -
My point being, and one you underline, that two sides willing to go to war adds an imperative that simply won't apply to Scottish independence. If the vote is a "Yes" it'll be in both parties interest to get the separation as smooth as is practical without compromising either sides interest unreasonably, that'll take time... And that's to ignore the complexity that a concurrent 2017 EU referendum campaign and result might add...Neil said:
Indeed - in the Free State you had two sides of the debate willing to go to war with each other (and with the Unionists and with the rUK again if it came to it). Nothing anywhere near so complicated or difficult in the current circumstances. Issues of sharing national debt / currency / military assets all arose in 1921 / 1922 and were dealt with in that timeframe. Absolutely no reason it would take 6 years now.Rexel56 said:
Well, exactly... The circumstances are incomparable...Neil said:
Dont be ridiculous. A truce in the Irish War of Independence was called in July 1921, the Irish Free State Constitution Act became law in December 1922. And that was in far more difficult circumstances.Rexel56 said:Six years would be a sensible timeframe
0 -
Depends what that flood of BRICS money was all about - which is still a bit of a grey swan imo.SeanT said:ONtopic I note that all those people, e.g. Southam et al, who were roundly praising the German economy the other day, and dissing the UK, have gone strangely quiet on the subject, with the latest data out of the eurozone.
For comparison:
GDP growth in last three months (annualised): Germany -0.8%, Italy -0.8%, France 0%, United Kingdom +3.2%.
As far as I'm aware Germany etc didn't get the same.
0 -
When 'no' wins, I shall buy MalcomG a copy of When Prophecy Fails. It's a study of how cult members deal with reality when their End of World Prophecy does not in fact happen.0
-
I certainly don't want a UDI. I just think it's rather naïve to assume -- as most people seem to do at the moment -- that Scottish independence can just be treated as a "normal" political question where different propositions are put into the manifestos, one of which is then implemented after the GE. If the parties are sensible, all they'll put into the manifesto is: "This party will seek to conclude the independence negotiations in a way that achieves the best possible outcome for the rUK," without giving any specifics.Morris_Dancer said:A UDI would be messy, and not a good start for Scotland.
Mind you, I feel this likely an academic discussion, given the polls. I certainly hope so.
I don't think it's an academic discussion at all. Scotland feels like it's about to vote Yes, especially due to the participation of lots of people who previously couldn't be bothered to vote, and this group is likely to be underrepresented in opinion polls. However, a voter's a voter for aw that!0 -
By the way, thank you for the welcomes, and you're all very sweet, but I have posted previously on pb under various names. I gave up my last alias last year when the site moved to vanilla and I was too lazy to register for yet another online account.0
-
He was great. Actually I think I should say he is great because I don't recall any reports that he has yet joined the choir invisible. A terrific chap who has done much to publicise science and to recruit young people into it. Why he was never given a peerage is beyond me.Rexel56 said:
Prof Heinz Wolff?isam said:Anyone in their late 30s early 40s remember a mad/zany German scientist on a BBC2 show from the early 80s??
John Curtice lookalike!!0 -
The agreement precipitated a war rather than prevented one.Rexel56 said:
My point being, and one you underline, that two sides willing to go to war adds an imperative that simply won't apply to Scottish independence.Neil said:
Indeed - in the Free State you had two sides of the debate willing to go to war with each other (and with the Unionists and with the rUK again if it came to it). Nothing anywhere near so complicated or difficult in the current circumstances. Issues of sharing national debt / currency / military assets all arose in 1921 / 1922 and were dealt with in that timeframe. Absolutely no reason it would take 6 years now.Rexel56 said:
Well, exactly... The circumstances are incomparable...Neil said:
Dont be ridiculous. A truce in the Irish War of Independence was called in July 1921, the Irish Free State Constitution Act became law in December 1922. And that was in far more difficult circumstances.Rexel56 said:Six years would be a sensible timeframe
The fact there was a war over the agreed outcome *but it was still implemented in that timescale anyway*, shows that even in the most difficult of circumstances, when delaying implementation to avoid a war may seem attractive or when one side of the agreement is in an battle for its own survival, such a timescale is achievable.0 -
Is this Betfairs preffered solution?isam said:If either side wins by less than 10% I think there should be a referendum every 5 years until they do
Are you suggesting that if YES wins by less than 10% there should be another referendum in 5 years about returning to the UK? How do you think and to what end would Scotland be governed in those 5 years?
A small YES means Yes and a small NO means No.
0 -
I don't think for a second that Scotland would declare UDI quickly or easily. However, you can imagine a situation where the negotiations have reached a deadlock and the Westminster Government is clearly just trying to keep the issue on the back burner for many years. Scotland would eventually have to act, and the message to the international community would be that "Westminster are refusing to negotiate in good faith, so we have no choice."Patrick said:UDI would be worse for Scotland. It would be saying 'I'm not going to negotiate'.
0 -
Why would setting up a Scottish DVLA delay independence? Just come to an agreement that the software/systems will be shared, or under X payment structure.HurstLlama said:
Mr. G. such a time scale makes more sense than 2016. As we have discussed before, its not the politics its the practicalities of separation that is the tricky bit. Where is that data, what format is it in, how do we get it to where it needs to be for the new world and in what format. Just setting up a Scottish DVLA would take years and costs tens of millions.malcolmg said:
Interesting thought , would also allow more time to sort the Trident issue and makes sensible timescale to sort out what needs split and what makes sense to keep unified going forward.Rexel56 said:The process to negotiate separation won't be agreed by March 2016 never mind the negotiations being concluded. Six years would be a sensible timeframe with independence and GE coinciding in 2020 and a currency union for the first four years of independence...
As I keep saying it could be done quick and dirty but I don't think Scotland would be happy with the result.
The existing organisation then maintains the data, whilst the Scottish one is set up. Indeed Scotland may continue to outsource some services.
The decision just needs to be made, then there may be a number of different tracks down which services are slowly peeled away after independence.
E.g.
Faslane - 3 years.
Currency - 2 years.
DVLA - 1 year.
0 -
As if you couldn't guess, he was one of my childhood heroes. 'The Great Egg Race' was simply brilliant.HurstLlama said:
He was great. Actually I think I should say he is great because I don't recall any reports that he has yet joined the choir invisible. A terrific chap who has done much to publicise science and to recruit young people into it. Why he was never given a peerage is beyond me.Rexel56 said:
Prof Heinz Wolff?isam said:Anyone in their late 30s early 40s remember a mad/zany German scientist on a BBC2 show from the early 80s??
John Curtice lookalike!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/great_egg_race/
Thankfully he's still about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Wolff0 -
Neil how many lawyers, management consultants and bureaucrats were around in 1921 with a vested interested in making sure it all takes as long as possible ?Neil said:
The agreement precipitated a war rather than prevented one.Rexel56 said:
My point being, and one you underline, that two sides willing to go to war adds an imperative that simply won't apply to Scottish independence.Neil said:
Indeed - in the Free State you had two sides of the debate willing to go to war with each other (and with the Unionists and with the rUK again if it came to it). Nothing anywhere near so complicated or difficult in the current circumstances. Issues of sharing national debt / currency / military assets all arose in 1921 / 1922 and were dealt with in that timeframe. Absolutely no reason it would take 6 years now.Rexel56 said:
Well, exactly... The circumstances are incomparable...Neil said:
Dont be ridiculous. A truce in the Irish War of Independence was called in July 1921, the Irish Free State Constitution Act became law in December 1922. And that was in far more difficult circumstances.Rexel56 said:Six years would be a sensible timeframe
The fact there was a war over the agreed outcome *but it was still implemented in that timescale anyway*, shows that even in the most difficult of circumstances, when delaying implementation to avoid a war may seem attractive or when one side of the agreement is in an battle for its own survival, such a timescale is achievable.
Óglaigh na hÉireann was one thing, C(r)apita, ATOS(spot) and G4S(hit)'s contracts are quite another !0 -
Yes that's what I suggest.. they'd be governed as if they were independent but with a referendum due in five yearsFlightpath said:
Is this Betfairs preffered solution?isam said:If either side wins by less than 10% I think there should be a referendum every 5 years until they do
Are you suggesting that if YES wins by less than 10% there should be another referendum in 5 years about returning to the UK? How do you think and to what end would Scotland be governed in those 5 years?
A small YES means Yes and a small NO means No.0 -
They may as well keep them there permanently, it's not like the UK's going to be using them without US permission in any case.Flightpath said:
It looks like YES is on target to win, but if the opposite were to happen then the subs would be moved to America to where they go for training and test firing now. All IMHO of course.0 -
twid --- Interesting thoughts but I do not see any chance of a delay to the General Election (even though it might be sensible) - except possibly to October 2015.
Are Labour going to agree to a delay in an election where they would be minus 40 seats?0 -
Which contract do you think would delay independence and why?Pulpstar said:
Neil how many lawyers, management consultants and bureaucrats were around in 1921 with a vested interested in making sure it all takes as long as possible ?Neil said:
The agreement precipitated a war rather than prevented one.Rexel56 said:
My point being, and one you underline, that two sides willing to go to war adds an imperative that simply won't apply to Scottish independence.Neil said:
Indeed - in the Free State you had two sides of the debate willing to go to war with each other (and with the Unionists and with the rUK again if it came to it). Nothing anywhere near so complicated or difficult in the current circumstances. Issues of sharing national debt / currency / military assets all arose in 1921 / 1922 and were dealt with in that timeframe. Absolutely no reason it would take 6 years now.Rexel56 said:
Well, exactly... The circumstances are incomparable...Neil said:
Dont be ridiculous. A truce in the Irish War of Independence was called in July 1921, the Irish Free State Constitution Act became law in December 1922. And that was in far more difficult circumstances.Rexel56 said:Six years would be a sensible timeframe
The fact there was a war over the agreed outcome *but it was still implemented in that timescale anyway*, shows that even in the most difficult of circumstances, when delaying implementation to avoid a war may seem attractive or when one side of the agreement is in an battle for its own survival, such a timescale is achievable.
Óglaigh na hÉireann was one thing, C(r)apita, ATOS(spot) and G4S(hit)'s contracts are quite another !
0 -
The fact that you consider this a good and sensible policy perhaps makes it less than ideal for demonstrating my point. However, let's say for argument's sake that the Scottish Government truly considers this an evil and harmful policy that would be hard to repeal; would they then be happy for Westminster to introduce it, or would they demand that they shelve it until independence day?edmundintokyo said:
Scotland wouldn't be independent yet so Scotland would have VAT on food, then they'd repeal it when they became independent (*).twid said:For instance, what would happen if Westminster wanted to introduce VAT on food and Scotland disagreed?
(*) They wouldn't really repeal it, because it would be the kind of good, sensible policy that's hard to introduce, but once introduced never gets repealed.0 -
I'm not sure to be honest, its speculation that won't be able to be tested with the inevitable No vote.Neil said:
Which contract do you think would delay independence and why?Pulpstar said:
Neil how many lawyers, management consultants and bureaucrats were around in 1921 with a vested interested in making sure it all takes as long as possible ?Neil said:
The agreement precipitated a war rather than prevented one.Rexel56 said:
My point being, and one you underline, that two sides willing to go to war adds an imperative that simply won't apply to Scottish independence.Neil said:
Indeed - in the Free State you had two sides of the debate willing to go to war with each other (and with the Unionists and with the rUK again if it came to it). Nothing anywhere near so complicated or difficult in the current circumstances. Issues of sharing national debt / currency / military assets all arose in 1921 / 1922 and were dealt with in that timeframe. Absolutely no reason it would take 6 years now.Rexel56 said:
Well, exactly... The circumstances are incomparable...Neil said:
Dont be ridiculous. A truce in the Irish War of Independence was called in July 1921, the Irish Free State Constitution Act became law in December 1922. And that was in far more difficult circumstances.Rexel56 said:Six years would be a sensible timeframe
The fact there was a war over the agreed outcome *but it was still implemented in that timescale anyway*, shows that even in the most difficult of circumstances, when delaying implementation to avoid a war may seem attractive or when one side of the agreement is in an battle for its own survival, such a timescale is achievable.
Óglaigh na hÉireann was one thing, C(r)apita, ATOS(spot) and G4S(hit)'s contracts are quite another !
But March 2016 looks a dreadfully tight deadline to have all the is dotted and ts crossed given the colossal nature of the modern state.0 -
Maybe there's none?Pulpstar said:
I'm not sure to be honestNeil said:
Which contract do you think would delay independence and why?Pulpstar said:
Neil how many lawyers, management consultants and bureaucrats were around in 1921 with a vested interested in making sure it all takes as long as possible ?Neil said:
The agreement precipitated a war rather than prevented one.Rexel56 said:
My point being, and one you underline, that two sides willing to go to war adds an imperative that simply won't apply to Scottish independence.Neil said:
Indeed - in the Free State you had two sides of the debate willing to go to war with each other (and with the Unionists and with the rUK again if it came to it). Nothing anywhere near so complicated or difficult in the current circumstances. Issues of sharing national debt / currency / military assets all arose in 1921 / 1922 and were dealt with in that timeframe. Absolutely no reason it would take 6 years now.Rexel56 said:
Well, exactly... The circumstances are incomparable...Neil said:
Dont be ridiculous. A truce in the Irish War of Independence was called in July 1921, the Irish Free State Constitution Act became law in December 1922. And that was in far more difficult circumstances.Rexel56 said:Six years would be a sensible timeframe
The fact there was a war over the agreed outcome *but it was still implemented in that timescale anyway*, shows that even in the most difficult of circumstances, when delaying implementation to avoid a war may seem attractive or when one side of the agreement is in an battle for its own survival, such a timescale is achievable.
Óglaigh na hÉireann was one thing, C(r)apita, ATOS(spot) and G4S(hit)'s contracts are quite another !0 -
I don't doubt that under such circumstances such a timescale is achievable, I'm just pointing out that they don't apply here and so it'll take longer. Once the vote has happened, there's no burning platform.Neil said:
The agreement precipitated a war rather than prevented one.Rexel56 said:
My point being, and one you underline, that two sides willing to go to war adds an imperative that simply won't apply to Scottish independence.Neil said:
Indeed - in the Free State you had two sides of the debate willing to go to war with each other (and with the Unionists and with the rUK again if it came to it). Nothing anywhere near so complicated or difficult in the current circumstances. Issues of sharing national debt / currency / military assets all arose in 1921 / 1922 and were dealt with in that timeframe. Absolutely no reason it would take 6 years now.Rexel56 said:
Well, exactly... The circumstances are incomparable...Neil said:
Dont be ridiculous. A truce in the Irish War of Independence was called in July 1921, the Irish Free State Constitution Act became law in December 1922. And that was in far more difficult circumstances.Rexel56 said:Six years would be a sensible timeframe
The fact there was a war over the agreed outcome *but it was still implemented in that timescale anyway*, shows that even in the most difficult of circumstances, when delaying implementation to avoid a war may seem attractive or when one side of the agreement is in an battle for its own survival, such a timescale is achievable.0 -
North Sea oil contracts and agreements.Neil said:
Maybe there's none?Pulpstar said:
I'm not sure to be honestNeil said:
Which contract do you think would delay independence and why?Pulpstar said:
Neil how many lawyers, management consultants and bureaucrats were around in 1921 with a vested interested in making sure it all takes as long as possible ?Neil said:
The agreement precipitated a war rather than prevented one.Rexel56 said:
My point being, and one you underline, that two sides willing to go to war adds an imperative that simply won't apply to Scottish independence.Neil said:
Indeed - in the Free State you had two sides of the debate willing to go to war with each other (and with the Unionists and with the rUK again if it came to it). Nothing anywhere near so complicated or difficult in the current circumstances. Issues of sharing national debt / currency / military assets all arose in 1921 / 1922 and were dealt with in that timeframe. Absolutely no reason it would take 6 years now.Rexel56 said:
Well, exactly... The circumstances are incomparable...Neil said:
Dont be ridiculous. A truce in the Irish War of Independence was called in July 1921, the Irish Free State Constitution Act became law in December 1922. And that was in far more difficult circumstances.Rexel56 said:Six years would be a sensible timeframe
The fact there was a war over the agreed outcome *but it was still implemented in that timescale anyway*, shows that even in the most difficult of circumstances, when delaying implementation to avoid a war may seem attractive or when one side of the agreement is in an battle for its own survival, such a timescale is achievable.
Óglaigh na hÉireann was one thing, C(r)apita, ATOS(spot) and G4S(hit)'s contracts are quite another !0 -
The key is "hard to repeal". In this case it would be technically easy to repeal, so there's no problem. Scotland could demand it be shelved if they wanted to but the UK wouldn't be obliged to take any notice. I suppose if the Scottish government came up with a practical alternative way to raise the same revenue in Scotland in the mean time the UK would go along with it.twid said:
The fact that you consider this a good and sensible policy perhaps makes it less than ideal for demonstrating my point. However, let's say for argument's sake that the Scottish Government truly considers this an evil and harmful policy that would be hard to repeal; would they then be happy for Westminster to introduce it, or would they demand that they shelve it until independence day?edmundintokyo said:
Scotland wouldn't be independent yet so Scotland would have VAT on food, then they'd repeal it when they became independent (*).twid said:For instance, what would happen if Westminster wanted to introduce VAT on food and Scotland disagreed?
(*) They wouldn't really repeal it, because it would be the kind of good, sensible policy that's hard to introduce, but once introduced never gets repealed.
If there was something genuinely hard to reverse then a reasonable UK government would split off the Scottish part first, as we discussed with the Royal Mail. I can't think of anything that would be hard to reverse, could be split after independence, but couldn't be split before independence as part of whatever the restructuring was that would be hard to reverse. But if there was something like that, I suppose the UK would want to go slow on it.0 -
I read somewhere the point is to send a 'proper' explosive bomb down first, to destroy windows, and walls so the gas can enter houses. The chlorine bomb is then dropped to do its work.MrJones said:FPT
1) If the Syrian army is using home-made barrel bombs with home-made explosives and those explosives don't go off then they are likely going to give off nasty fumes of one kind or another.
And as for the bombs being 'home-made' as claimed on the previous thread: perhaps Tehran-made is more applicable:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10809186/West-fears-Iran-is-supplying-chlorine-bombs-to-Syria.html0 -
On planet Flightpath this may be true - not so sure about here though...Flightpath said:
It looks like YES is on target to win...Patrick said:
Perhaps, but the timeframe and expense of relocation is a purely political decision. In times of war it could be done almost overnight. Sail the subs to Devonport. Transport the weapons not in subs to a nearby military storage facility (Aldershot?). Keep calm and carry on.isam said:Watching Andrew Neils doc.. seems to me the NO team are as vague about post Indy Nukes as Salmond is about the currency
The real issue here is regulatory. We wouldn't now move them to Devonport because Devonport does not have nuclear weapons storage safety certification. The 'billions' quoted as the cost of moving is driven by an assumption of the pace, complexity and bureaucracy of doing anything in the civil service and of building like for like replicas of Faslane's facilities elsewhere. But that is a decision not a given.
For example the actual dock the subs moor against (and from which weapons are loaded/unloaded) is not a physical part of Scotland! It is large floating concrete Mulberry Harbour affair that could be tugged to Devonport.
Politicians and civil servants go 'hmm, very hard, very slow, very expensive'. Right up until one with authority (PM Dave, PM Redward?) says "Bollocks. Move the subs, move the weapons and store them somewhere physically secure, pass legislation to make this legal. Get on with it."0 -
You mean between the relevant Governments and licence holders? Surely companies will continue to operate under their existing licences until they expire? Whichever Government is then responsible for individual blocks can decide for itself how best to promote activity in its own jurisdiction? I cant see why that should be particularly complicated.Pulpstar said:
North Sea oil contracts and agreements.Neil said:
Maybe there's none?Pulpstar said:
I'm not sure to be honestNeil said:
Which contract do you think would delay independence and why?Pulpstar said:
Neil how many lawyers, management consultants and bureaucrats were around in 1921 with a vested interested in making sure it all takes as long as possible ?Neil said:
The agreement precipitated a war rather than prevented one.Rexel56 said:
My point being, and one you underline, that two sides willing to go to war adds an imperative that simply won't apply to Scottish independence.Neil said:
Indeed - in the Free State you had two sides of the debate willing to go to war with each other (and with the Unionists and with the rUK again if it came to it). Nothing anywhere near so complicated or difficult in the current circumstances. Issues of sharing national debt / currency / military assets all arose in 1921 / 1922 and were dealt with in that timeframe. Absolutely no reason it would take 6 years now.Rexel56 said:
Well, exactly... The circumstances are incomparable...Neil said:
Dont be ridiculous. A truce in the Irish War of Independence was called in July 1921, the Irish Free State Constitution Act became law in December 1922. And that was in far more difficult circumstances.Rexel56 said:Six years would be a sensible timeframe
The fact there was a war over the agreed outcome *but it was still implemented in that timescale anyway*, shows that even in the most difficult of circumstances, when delaying implementation to avoid a war may seem attractive or when one side of the agreement is in an battle for its own survival, such a timescale is achievable.
Óglaigh na hÉireann was one thing, C(r)apita, ATOS(spot) and G4S(hit)'s contracts are quite another !
0 -
0
-
It is Coulport that is the expensive bit that will cost a fortune to replicate. The rest just needs a deep water port.Patrick said:
Perhaps, but the timeframe and expense of relocation is a purely political decision. In times of war it could be done almost overnight. Sail the subs to Devonport. Transport the weapons not in subs to a nearby military storage facility (Aldershot?). Keep calm and carry on.isam said:Watching Andrew Neils doc.. seems to me the NO team are as vague about post Indy Nukes as Salmond is about the currency
The real issue here is regulatory. We wouldn't now move them to Devonport because Devonport does not have nuclear weapons storage safety certification. The 'billions' quoted as the cost of moving is driven by an assumption of the pace, complexity and bureaucracy of doing anything in the civil service and of building like for like replicas of Faslane's facilities elsewhere. But that is a decision not a given.
For example the actual dock the subs moor against (and from which weapons are loaded/unloaded) is not a physical part of Scotland! It is large floating concrete Mulberry Harbour affair that could be tugged to Devonport.
Politicians and civil servants go 'hmm, very hard, very slow, very expensive'. Right up until one with authority (PM Dave, PM Redward?) says "Bollocks. Move the subs, move the weapons and store them somewhere physically secure, pass legislation to make this legal. Get on with it."0 -
A time when mavericks and characters were allowed on TV shows. Sadly, I attended the funeral of Ian McNaught-Davis earlier this year, another great character from Micro Live and climbing documentaries such as The Old Man of Hoy.JosiasJessop said:
As if you couldn't guess, he was one of my childhood heroes. 'The Great Egg Race' was simply brilliant.HurstLlama said:
He was great. Actually I think I should say he is great because I don't recall any reports that he has yet joined the choir invisible. A terrific chap who has done much to publicise science and to recruit young people into it. Why he was never given a peerage is beyond me.Rexel56 said:
Prof Heinz Wolff?isam said:Anyone in their late 30s early 40s remember a mad/zany German scientist on a BBC2 show from the early 80s??
John Curtice lookalike!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/great_egg_race/
Thankfully he's still about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Wolff0 -
You are still ignoring the the fact that the state is a much bigger factor in everyone's lives now than it was then. Its all very well talking High Politics, Mr Twid is also at it, "if Scotland doesn't get what it wants it will just declare UDI". It is all tosh! Just think about what would be involved in one tiny part of the state, the regulation of driving motor vehicles. Then consider tax and benefit records, companies house and, well I could go on.Neil said:
The agreement precipitated a war rather than prevented one.Rexel56 said:
My point being, and one you underline, that two sides willing to go to war adds an imperative that simply won't apply to Scottish independence.Neil said:
Indeed - in the Free State you had two sides of the debate willing to go to war with each other (and with the Unionists and with the rUK again if it came to it). Nothing anywhere near so complicated or difficult in the current circumstances. Issues of sharing national debt / currency / military assets all arose in 1921 / 1922 and were dealt with in that timeframe. Absolutely no reason it would take 6 years now.Rexel56 said:
Well, exactly... The circumstances are incomparable...Neil said:
Dont be ridiculous. A truce in the Irish War of Independence was called in July 1921, the Irish Free State Constitution Act became law in December 1922. And that was in far more difficult circumstances.Rexel56 said:Six years would be a sensible timeframe
The fact there was a war over the agreed outcome *but it was still implemented in that timescale anyway*, shows that even in the most difficult of circumstances, when delaying implementation to avoid a war may seem attractive or when one side of the agreement is in an battle for its own survival, such a timescale is achievable.
The big practical difficulty in a separation of Scotland form the UK is the data. Where is it? What format is it in? Are there any computers that can be procured to run it it in its present format and run the existent software? Who owns that software, what licence fee will they charge? Crikey the list goes on and on.
The idea that a reasonable and seamless separation between rUK, really England, and Scotland in 18 months is lunacy.
0 -
Greetings!RobD said:Calling Sunil....
0 -
Salmond = Mr Jinnah??TheScreamingEagles said:And nice use of the word Partition on the 67th anniversary of Partition.
Which happened under Labour and led to the deaths of nearly a million people.
Ergo Labour can't be in charge of the partition of the UK.0 -
The idea that all that has to be done and dusted in order for independence to be formally signed off is the lunacy.HurstLlama said:
The idea that a reasonable and seamless separation between rUK, really England, and Scotland in 18 months is lunacy.
So some rUK tax is collected and processed in Scotland and some Scottish tax is collected and processed in rUK. Rather than untangling all those specifics before independence is achieved there only needs to be an agreement on how to proceed (keep existing arrangements where sensible, an orderly transition to new arrangements where not).
Scottish independence does not have to wait for all rUK employers to deal with the Shipley accounts office of HMRC rather than the Cumbernauld one.0 -
Yep, Coulport is the big problem in my eyes. Storage of not just the fissile material, but other related items. Although Faslane's ship lift will be expensive to replicate.malcolmg said:
It is Coulport that is the expensive bit that will cost a fortune to replicate. The rest just needs a deep water port.Patrick said:
Perhaps, but the timeframe and expense of relocation is a purely political decision. In times of war it could be done almost overnight. Sail the subs to Devonport. Transport the weapons not in subs to a nearby military storage facility (Aldershot?). Keep calm and carry on.isam said:Watching Andrew Neils doc.. seems to me the NO team are as vague about post Indy Nukes as Salmond is about the currency
The real issue here is regulatory. We wouldn't now move them to Devonport because Devonport does not have nuclear weapons storage safety certification. The 'billions' quoted as the cost of moving is driven by an assumption of the pace, complexity and bureaucracy of doing anything in the civil service and of building like for like replicas of Faslane's facilities elsewhere. But that is a decision not a given.
For example the actual dock the subs moor against (and from which weapons are loaded/unloaded) is not a physical part of Scotland! It is large floating concrete Mulberry Harbour affair that could be tugged to Devonport.
Politicians and civil servants go 'hmm, very hard, very slow, very expensive'. Right up until one with authority (PM Dave, PM Redward?) says "Bollocks. Move the subs, move the weapons and store them somewhere physically secure, pass legislation to make this legal. Get on with it."
http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/index.php/Secrets/RNADCoulport#fnr1_10 -
Any of that is possible. I certainly wouldn't put it past them to use chemical weapons if they had them and no one was watching. Just saying chlorine can be used to make explosives.JosiasJessop said:
I read somewhere the point is to send a 'proper' explosive bomb down first, to destroy windows, and walls so the gas can enter houses. The chlorine bomb is then dropped to do its work.MrJones said:FPT
1) If the Syrian army is using home-made barrel bombs with home-made explosives and those explosives don't go off then they are likely going to give off nasty fumes of one kind or another.
And as for the bombs being 'home-made' as claimed on the previous thread: perhaps Tehran-made is more applicable:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10809186/West-fears-Iran-is-supplying-chlorine-bombs-to-Syria.html
(note to NSA I googled the chlorine info just now so don't drone me)
0 -
People! A NO vote will favour Lab, and a YES will be more beneficial to the Tories, in the short term (2015 and possibly 2020).0
-
I see the SNP has accepted another £1 million from well known equal rights enthusiast Brian Souter. Lovely man.0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
This discussion has been closed.