Ireland's GDP numbers are grossly distorted by the presence of multi-nationals. GNP is a far better measure. Though I dont think that anyone could doubt that Ireland has done a lot better than the UK since independence (as in the gap between the two was very significant back then and is quite narrow now) though that hides a terrible time in the first decades after independence (never get into a trade war with your biggest partner) followed by exceptional growth in the last two decades (well, except for the crash).
Ireland has been heavily subsidised by the EU over the years (to reduce its dependency on the UK), and it has wisely chosen to compete by making itself into a low tax economy. Scotland would not be the same because a) the EU has no money left, and what money it does have will be going to prop up places like Ukraine and Bulgaria, and stave off euro collapse. And b) despite vague mentions of 'simplifying' Scotland's tax system, Salmond would have to make good on vast promises made to those who want to 'get the Tories out' and think they are voting for a land of socialist milk and honey. Given the poltical make up of the two countries it's actually far more likely that England will become the 'tiger' economy, leaving Scotland behind.
LOL, you really do live in fairy land , "Tiger" economy LOL. EU has no money on one hand but subsidises Ireland , Ukraine , Bulgaria , etc etc on the other hand. At least try to stay consistent.
However if you do decide yes, you can whistle for the currency. Sorry, mate, but that's human nature
That would seem to be cutting your nose off to spite your face. An independent Scotland is unlikely to maintain an independent currency for very long. It will almost certainly move into the sphere of a bigger currency. Why the rUK would benefit from Scotland moving into the Euro sphere rather than staying in the Sterling sphere has never been explained by the parties who insist that this is what should happen. Possibly because they're just playing politics with the issue.
It is not politically do-able for English taxpayers to assume the (significant) risk of Scottish bank failure.
You might want to have a word with all those people saying that Scottish banks will reregister in London in order to be covered by English taxpayers.
Oh, you were one of them!
You need to think of this from the perspective of George Osborne. A YES would place an immediate question mark over the Scottish registered banks. Customers like me would want pretty much instant comfort that we'll not be put at risk. There is a genuine risk of a run on cash deposits. I'll move my money and business elsewhere if I don't see BOS becoming a rUK entity. I'm already exposed as a taxpayer to systemic risk from these banks. I can deal with that in a UK regulatory / compensation scheme / lender of last resort environment. But not where these issues are not covered. Osborne would be obliged as a prudent politician (as would the directors of Lloyd's under their fiduciary duty) to eliminate a very serious and very genuine systemic risk. I imagine there is ALREADY a statement prepared and sitting in Ozzy's drawer giving detail and comfort on the English re-registration of the state owned Scottish banks. It would be a gross dereliction of duty if he didn't.
Blah blah blah, yada yada yada - thanks for the entertainment!
If I were Scottish and lived in Scotland, I'd vote for independence. To get away from London and for the excitement and exhilaration. But being English, I'd be sorry to see Scotland go.
However if you do decide yes, you can whistle for the currency. Sorry, mate, but that's human nature
CD13 , personally I don't think it is a big deal , we will still use the pound. Every country has a currency and they get on with it. CU or not it will be fine , my preference would be no CU and UK keeps their debts for sure.
PS , Salmond is being too nice for me , I would kick some butt and issue a few real threats.
It's like a work colleague leaving for a much better job - one that you fancied. Although you wish them well, if they return temporarily to root round and steal the best bits of yours, you might tell them to ... desist.
So what would happen to the Bank of Scotland after a YES?
Bank of Scotland plc (registered in Scotland and operating on a UK banking licence) has 2 main brands: Bank of Scotland and Halifax. http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/uk-should-not-vote-on-currency-union-salmond-1-3321888 Given that there will be no currency union, the shareholder (Lloyds Banking Group = UK government) will have to decide if there is a risk to clients' funds, both North and South of the border. No shit Sherlock!
I'm guessing overnight they'd decide to re-register BOS plc as an English corporation. But...to leave the Head Office and adminstrative functions untouched in Scotland. BOS would become an English company but managed from Edinburgh. (My employer is a UK plc but is managed from a head office in the Netherlands - no drama). The branches in Scotland would become part of a Scottish subsidiary. They'd need to offer new accounts in whatever currency Scotland adopts, but also BOS could offer existing Scottish customers to move their Sterling account to an English branch if they wish. The disruption from a practical angle could be very minimal. English customers of BOS need not notice anything at all (my own personal bank account is at BOS London Chief Office - I'm quite happy with them). If BOS didn't reincorporate in England they'd run a serious risk of losing this entire non-Scottish customer block (incl me) - you can't have your day to day current account in foreign country!
The risk would be primarily to customers in Scotland who wouldn't be at all clear what currency they were going to get paid in etc but this would be true across the Scottish banking industry - so there'd be no point in trying open a new or different account until it became clear just what Plan B really is.
your real whopper is assuming no CU, that is a long shot.
The currency union opposed by 60% of the rUK electorate? 74% excluding the Don't knows.....That one? Or the one in Alex Salmond's head.....
But it is the sovereign will of the people of Scotland to be in a currency union, don't you know, the sovereign will of the people of rump UK has nothing to do with it.
And they certainly don't need a vote on it either......according to Salmond anyway.....
It's like a work colleague leaving for a much better job - one that you fancied. Although you wish them well, if they return temporarily to root round and steal the best bits of yours, you might tell them to ... desist.
Of course, your nature might be much more noble.
You seem to see this as some sort of bizarre zero-sum-game.
If I were Scottish and lived in Scotland, I'd vote for independence. To get away from London and for the excitement and exhilaration. But being English, I'd be sorry to see Scotland go.
However if you do decide yes, you can whistle for the currency. Sorry, mate, but that's human nature
CD13 , personally I don't think it is a big deal , we will still use the pound. Every country has a currency and they get on with it. CU or not it will be fine , my preference would be no CU and UK keeps their debts for sure.
PS , Salmond is being too nice for me , I would kick some butt and issue a few real threats.
Now that is a really nasty posting. Rather like Mr Smart [edited to correct] who predicted pogroms, no?
not all the separatists are such models of charm, sweetness and light as your good self.
As we see here.
Daily, and frequently hourly.....
Surely only a fecking moron would suggest that the abuse is only from the 'separatist' side?
If pbc was representative of the wider internet (not that I'm suggesting it is for a second) then the proportion of 'yes' posters one could describe as "troubled" was scarily high!
Just did a quick analysis of the recent ICM and Ipsos polls unweighted figures (Phone poll figures from weighted to unweighted don't vary that much - the sample is probably more random than internet pollsters which are frequently very heavily weighted).
Both polls weighted so they have the same number of respondents:
Forced others to be 8% and came up with the following:
CON 502 32% LAB 583 38% LD 116 7% UKIP 228 15%
(Pseudo) Sample size 1429
If you are looking for caveats the biggest is probably that I've made no attempt to correct for certainty to vote.
I simply cannot see how rUK politicians can back track on "no currency union", given the publicity it is generating, the harm it would do to any party that broke ranks on this ("soft on the Scots" is not going to win elections in Nuneaton, or Widnes, - or even Cardiff I might add), and the fact that the risk of having to bail out a future RBS far outweighs any Trident relocation cost or whatever else Scotland says it would do by refusing a debt share.
Surely the nightmare scenario is a narrow Yes win (still think it'll be No but a big Yes seems the least likely case), followed by the realisation rUK meant every word of it and there's no currency union. Would there be demands north of the border for a revote on the grounds of "ah well if I'd known they meant it, I would've voted No"?
Too late by then, as I firmly believe the atmosphere in rUK will be "you've made your bed now lie in it". Not that many firm Yes voters will care, and fair enough. There will be all kinds of financial and other dislocation and rough waters on both sides of the border for sure, but I still cannot see anyone agreeing to share the Pound in a currency union.
I'm sure some people vote on sound logic, but I suspect it's not the majority.
Is it too much to ask for sound logic from the Chancellor, shadow Chancellor and Chief Secretary to the Treasury (or at least two out of the three if you dont want to ask too much of Danny Alexander)?
It is not politically do-able for English taxpayers to assume the (significant) risk of Scottish bank failure.
You might want to have a word with all those people saying that Scottish banks will reregister in London in order to be covered by English taxpayers.
Oh, you were one of them!
You need to think of this from the perspective of George Osborne. A YES would place an immediate question mark over the Scottish registered banks. Customers like me would want pretty much instant comfort that we'll not be put at risk. There is a genuine risk of a run on cash deposits. I'll move my money and business elsewhere if I don't see BOS becoming a rUK entity. I'm already exposed as a taxpayer to systemic risk from these banks. I can deal with that in a UK regulatory / compensation scheme / lender of last resort environment. But not where these issues are not covered. Osborne would be obliged as a prudent politician (as would the directors of Lloyd's under their fiduciary duty) to eliminate a very serious and very genuine systemic risk. I imagine there is ALREADY a statement prepared and sitting in Ozzy's drawer giving detail and comfort on the English re-registration of the state owned Scottish banks. It would be a gross dereliction of duty if he didn't.
Blah blah blah, yada yada yada - thanks for the entertainment!
You're welcome. To ignore the immense political pressure this issue will exert on English politics is just naive. You may want to stick your head in the sand but Osborne and Balls can't.
It is not politically do-able for English taxpayers to assume the (significant) risk of Scottish bank failure.
You might want to have a word with all those people saying that Scottish banks will reregister in London in order to be covered by English taxpayers.
Oh, you were one of them!
You need to think of this from the perspective of George Osborne. A YES would place an immediate question mark over the Scottish registered banks. Customers like me would want pretty much instant comfort that we'll not be put at risk. There is a genuine risk of a run on cash deposits. I'll move my money and business elsewhere if I don't see BOS becoming a rUK entity. I'm already exposed as a taxpayer to systemic risk from these banks. I can deal with that in a UK regulatory / compensation scheme / lender of last resort environment. But not where these issues are not covered. Osborne would be obliged as a prudent politician (as would the directors of Lloyd's under their fiduciary duty) to eliminate a very serious and very genuine systemic risk. I imagine there is ALREADY a statement prepared and sitting in Ozzy's drawer giving detail and comfort on the English re-registration of the state owned Scottish banks. It would be a gross dereliction of duty if he didn't.
Patrick , we will be lucky to get to the vote without something being done. Markets will be spooked with the rhetoric from Westminster, they will not like it if they keep to the position that they will self harm rather than do the sensible thing. They will scent profits and George and Mr Carney will be issuing their contingency plans PDQ.
It is not politically do-able for English taxpayers to assume the (significant) risk of Scottish bank failure.
You might want to have a word with all those people saying that Scottish banks will reregister in London in order to be covered by English taxpayers.
Oh, you were one of them!
You need to think of this from the perspective of George Osborne. A YES would place an immediate question mark over the Scottish registered banks. Customers like me would want pretty much instant comfort that we'll not be put at risk. There is a genuine risk of a run on cash deposits. I'll move my money and business elsewhere if I don't see BOS becoming a rUK entity. I'm already exposed as a taxpayer to systemic risk from these banks. I can deal with that in a UK regulatory / compensation scheme / lender of last resort environment. But not where these issues are not covered. Osborne would be obliged as a prudent politician (as would the directors of Lloyd's under their fiduciary duty) to eliminate a very serious and very genuine systemic risk. I imagine there is ALREADY a statement prepared and sitting in Ozzy's drawer giving detail and comfort on the English re-registration of the state owned Scottish banks. It would be a gross dereliction of duty if he didn't.
Blah blah blah, yada yada yada - thanks for the entertainment!
You're welcome. To ignore the immense political pressure this issue will exert on English politics is just naive. You may want to stick your head in the sand but Osborne and Balls can't.
I wasnt laughing at the politics of it - I was laughing at your comical positioning in consecutive posts.
So what would happen to the Bank of Scotland after a YES?
Bank of Scotland plc (registered in Scotland and operating on a UK banking licence) has 2 main brands: Bank of Scotland and Halifax. http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/uk-should-not-vote-on-currency-union-salmond-1-3321888 Given that there will be no currency union, the shareholder (Lloyds Banking Group = UK government) will have to decide if there is a risk to clients' funds, both North and South of the border. No shit Sherlock!
I'm guessing overnight they'd decide to re-register BOS plc as an English corporation. But...to leave the Head Office and adminstrative functions untouched in Scotland. BOS would become an English company but managed from Edinburgh. (My employer is a UK plc but is managed from a head office in the Netherlands - no drama). The branches in Scotland would become part of a Scottish subsidiary. They'd need to offer new accounts in whatever currency Scotland adopts, but also BOS could offer existing Scottish customers to move their Sterling account to an English branch if they wish. The disruption from a practical angle could be very minimal. English customers of BOS need not notice anything at all (my own personal bank account is at BOS London Chief Office - I'm quite happy with them). If BOS didn't reincorporate in England they'd run a serious risk of losing this entire non-Scottish customer block (incl me) - you can't have your day to day current account in foreign country!
But it is the sovereign will of the people of Scotland to be in a currency union, don't you know, the sovereign will of the people of rump UK has nothing to do with it.
And they certainly don't need a vote on it either......according to Salmond anyway.....
It is not politically do-able for English taxpayers to assume the (significant) risk of Scottish bank failure.
You might want to have a word with all those people saying that Scottish banks will reregister in London in order to be covered by English taxpayers.
Oh, you were one of them!
You need to think of this from the perspective of George Osborne. A YES would place an immediate question mark over the Scottish registered banks. Customers like me would want pretty much instant comfort that we'll not be put at risk. There is a genuine risk of a run on cash deposits. I'll move my money and business elsewhere if I don't see BOS becoming a rUK entity. I'm already exposed as a taxpayer to systemic risk from these banks. I can deal with that in a UK regulatory / compensation scheme / lender of last resort environment. But not where these issues are not covered. Osborne would be obliged as a prudent politician (as would the directors of Lloyd's under their fiduciary duty) to eliminate a very serious and very genuine systemic risk. I imagine there is ALREADY a statement prepared and sitting in Ozzy's drawer giving detail and comfort on the English re-registration of the state owned Scottish banks. It would be a gross dereliction of duty if he didn't.
Blah blah blah, yada yada yada - thanks for the entertainment!
You're welcome. To ignore the immense political pressure this issue will exert on English politics is just naive. You may want to stick your head in the sand but Osborne and Balls can't.
Balls is just a bystander, it is the hapless George who will need to make the move
I simply cannot see how rUK politicians can back track on "no currency union", given the publicity it is generating, the harm it would do to any party that broke ranks on this ("soft on the Scots" is not going to win elections in Nuneaton, or Widnes, - or even Cardiff I might add), and the fact that the risk of having to bail out a future RBS far outweighs any Trident relocation cost or whatever else Scotland says it would do by refusing a debt share.
Surely the nightmare scenario is a narrow Yes win (still think it'll be No but a big Yes seems the least likely case), followed by the realisation rUK meant every word of it and there's no currency union. Would there be demands north of the border for a revote on the grounds of "ah well if I'd known they meant it, I would've voted No"?
Too late by then, as I firmly believe the atmosphere in rUK will be "you've made your bed now lie in it". Not that many firm Yes voters will care, and fair enough. There will be all kinds of financial and other dislocation and rough waters on both sides of the border for sure, but I still cannot see anyone agreeing to share the Pound in a currency union.
Fantasy to think anyone in Scotland would opt for a chance to go back. It will be down to negotiation then and whether they will cut off their nose to spite their face, or if the markets will allow it more like.
Now that is a really nasty posting. Rather like Mr Smart [edited to correct] who predicted pogroms, no?
not all the separatists are such models of charm, sweetness and light as your good self.
As we see here.
Daily, and frequently hourly.....
Surely only a fecking moron would suggest that the abuse is only from the 'separatist' side?
If pbc was representative of the wider internet (not that I'm suggesting it is for a second) then the proportion of 'yes' posters one could describe as "troubled" was scarily high!
Thirty days to go and although there have been a number of mildly encouraging polls for the YES camp over recent days, the odds of a nationalist victory are now out to 5/1, almost the biggest price it has ever been in the two and a half years since Ladbrokes started betting on a referendum outcome. Back in January 2012 when we opened our book, we made a YES vote just 5/2. The only time it was ever shorter was in April of this year, when it briefly dipped to 9/4.
It's a pity none of the Scottish referendum polls seem to have regional breakdowns (although i haven't done much excavating in the fine print). We can guess that the Borders and Dumfries&Galloway are probably going to vote No fairly heavily, while the Western Isles are likely to vote Yes. But it would be interesting to have this confirmed by polling data. And to see how Edinburgh and Glasgow are likely to vote.
I do believe you knocked what UKIP said when I linked to their proposal, even though you hadn't read it as you were "too busy" (pompous know-it-all- ness seems to be your standard response to any non Tory idea)
We could charge visitors entry fee to wards and when someone suggested making it free, the argument that they
"represent an important income stream to hospitals"
Would be as valid as the one you make now.. I would still say people should be able to visit their families in hospital for free and it was wrong they should be charged
When I visited my Dad in hospital in March 2010 I seriously couldn't believe we had to pay to use the car park.. such is life I thought
That was under a Labour government, now we have the other two in charge and it stays the same.. a new party makes it policy to scrap the charges and I agree.. so what?
I didn't knock it - it's just a populist idea. I just said it needed to be paid for (and I hadn't read UKIP's policy on how they were going to pay for it). @MikeK has since said it will be paid for by the tooth fairy; @RichardNabavi has sensible said that if the tooth fairy is giving us all this money is that what we would use it for first.
What we need is a sensible conversation about how to fund healthcare. Then we can get rid of silly add ons and non-transparent charges like parking.
Sir Ian Botham left red-faced after penis tweet goes viral England cricket legend Sir Ian Botham says hackers are responsible for publishing an explicit picture of a man's genitalia on his Twitter timeline
Thirty days to go and although there have been a number of mildly encouraging polls for the YES camp over recent days, the odds of a nationalist victory are now out to 5/1, almost the biggest price it has ever been in the two and a half years since Ladbrokes started betting on a referendum outcome. Back in January 2012 when we opened our book, we made a YES vote just 5/2. The only time it was ever shorter was in April of this year, when it briefly dipped to 9/4.
It's a pity none of the Scottish referendum polls seem to have regional breakdowns (although i haven't done much excavating in the fine print). We can guess that the Borders and Dumfries&Galloway are probably going to vote No fairly heavily, while the Western Isles are likely to vote Yes. But it would be interesting to have this confirmed by polling data. And to see how Edinburgh and Glasgow are likely to vote.
Andy , I have seen mention of votes by region somewhere , no idea where or if official polls etc but will see what I can find
I do believe you knocked what UKIP said when I linked to their proposal, even though you hadn't read it as you were "too busy" (pompous know-it-all- ness seems to be your standard response to any non Tory idea)
We could charge visitors entry fee to wards and when someone suggested making it free, the argument that they
"represent an important income stream to hospitals"
Would be as valid as the one you make now.. I would still say people should be able to visit their families in hospital for free and it was wrong they should be charged
When I visited my Dad in hospital in March 2010 I seriously couldn't believe we had to pay to use the car park.. such is life I thought
That was under a Labour government, now we have the other two in charge and it stays the same.. a new party makes it policy to scrap the charges and I agree.. so what?
I didn't knock it - it's just a populist idea. I just said it needed to be paid for (and I hadn't read UKIP's policy on how they were going to pay for it). @MikeK has since said it will be paid for by the tooth fairy; @RichardNabavi has sensible said that if the tooth fairy is giving us all this money is that what we would use it for first.
What we need is a sensible conversation about how to fund healthcare. Then we can get rid of silly add ons and non-transparent charges like parking.
Except its not the tooth fairy is it? More pompous blasé nothingness from you I am afraid
Wake Up! There is a party here now who WOULD do things that the other three wont consider, and don't mind upsetting the status quo to put local people first
...and although he has already said it (as has Mark Carney), no doubt Ozzy has in his ready-to-go statement that the rUK will guarantee the full 100% debt of the UK and that Scotland's 8% is a matter for agreement between rUK/Scotland not one for investors to worry about....
I think the real fireworks of a negotiation would come when the CU is actually vetoed and then Salmond tries to wriggle out of the 8% debt. Could get very, very nasty from that point.
"parking charges represent an important income stream to hospitals"
then say
"does anyone know what proportion of NHS funding (or simply hospital funding) comes from parking charges? I've no idea, but would guess it's a fairly small proportion"
True, I'm a bit doubtful about that bit of the post, but agree with the general theme that parking charges are a somewhat random tax on hospital use and this sort of thing should be looked at in a wider review of what the hospitals do and how they get the money to do it.
If 200 people use it a day at £5 a go, that's £365,000 per year. [made up numbers]
That's an "important income stream" for a hospital in my view. It would, for instance, cover the annual cost of 2 MRI scanners. (£1.5m capital cost, 10 year lifespan)
It's a pity none of the Scottish referendum polls seem to have regional breakdowns (although i haven't done much excavating in the fine print). We can guess that the Borders and Dumfries&Galloway are probably going to vote No fairly heavily, while the Western Isles are likely to vote Yes. But it would be interesting to have this confirmed by polling data. And to see how Edinburgh and Glasgow are likely to vote.
It's a pity none of the Scottish referendum polls seem to have regional breakdowns (although i haven't done much excavating in the fine print). We can guess that the Borders and Dumfries&Galloway are probably going to vote No fairly heavily, while the Western Isles are likely to vote Yes. But it would be interesting to have this confirmed by polling data. And to see how Edinburgh and Glasgow are likely to vote.
Andy , I have seen mention of votes by region somewhere , no idea where or if official polls etc but will see what I can find
Thanks Malcolm. A bit lazy of me not to do a thorough search.
"parking charges represent an important income stream to hospitals"
then say
"does anyone know what proportion of NHS funding (or simply hospital funding) comes from parking charges? I've no idea, but would guess it's a fairly small proportion"
True, I'm a bit doubtful about that bit of the post, but agree with the general theme that parking charges are a somewhat random tax on hospital use and this sort of thing should be looked at in a wider review of what the hospitals do and how they get the money to do it.
If 200 people use it a day at £5 a go, that's £365,000 per year. [made up numbers]
That's an "important income stream" for a hospital in my view. It would, for instance, cover the annual cost of 2 MRI scanners. (£1.5m capital cost, 10 year lifespan)
A tory in favour of taxing people twice to pay for state healthcare, they really are becoming "progressive"
A Transatlantic sailor has been rescued three miles off the coast of Dorset after trying to sail to the US in a 14ft (4.3m) dinghy.
The Bulgarian national had set out from Christchurch Harbour on Saturday when a passing yachtsman saw he looked seasick as he ventured into choppy seas.
Initially, the man refused help, but was eventually dragged on to an RNLI lifeboat and brought to shore.
The RNLI said the man, whose only navigational aid was a street map of Southampton, faced certain death.
Almost up to the Fourth Crusade in my re-reading of John Julius Norwich's fantastic trilogy on Byzantium. Worth reminding people ahead of potential separation negotiations that peoples and leaders are capable of making monumentally stupid decisions.
I do believe you knocked what UKIP said when I linked to their proposal, even though you hadn't read it as you were "too busy" (pompous know-it-all- ness seems to be your standard response to any non Tory idea)
We could charge visitors entry fee to wards and when someone suggested making it free, the argument that they
"represent an important income stream to hospitals"
Would be as valid as the one you make now.. I would still say people should be able to visit their families in hospital for free and it was wrong they should be charged
When I visited my Dad in hospital in March 2010 I seriously couldn't believe we had to pay to use the car park.. such is life I thought
That was under a Labour government, now we have the other two in charge and it stays the same.. a new party makes it policy to scrap the charges and I agree.. so what?
I didn't knock it - it's just a populist idea. I just said it needed to be paid for (and I hadn't read UKIP's policy on how they were going to pay for it). @MikeK has since said it will be paid for by the tooth fairy; @RichardNabavi has sensible said that if the tooth fairy is giving us all this money is that what we would use it for first.
What we need is a sensible conversation about how to fund healthcare. Then we can get rid of silly add ons and non-transparent charges like parking.
Except its not the tooth fairy is it? More pompous blasé nothingness from you I am afraid
Wake Up! There is a party here now who WOULD do things that the other three wont consider, and don't mind upsetting the status quo to put local people first
Sounds like your rallying cry should be...
"I am proud to have been capable of giving people hope again"
I'm sure François Hollande won't mind you borrowing it.
"parking charges represent an important income stream to hospitals"
then say
"does anyone know what proportion of NHS funding (or simply hospital funding) comes from parking charges? I've no idea, but would guess it's a fairly small proportion"
True, I'm a bit doubtful about that bit of the post, but agree with the general theme that parking charges are a somewhat random tax on hospital use and this sort of thing should be looked at in a wider review of what the hospitals do and how they get the money to do it.
If 200 people use it a day at £5 a go, that's £365,000 per year. [made up numbers]
That's an "important income stream" for a hospital in my view. It would, for instance, cover the annual cost of 2 MRI scanners. (£1.5m capital cost, 10 year lifespan)
A few years ago, there were some hospitals making nearly 2 million pound profit a year from car parking charges.
Fantasy to think anyone in Scotland would opt for a chance to go back. It will be down to negotiation then and whether they will cut off their nose to spite their face, or if the markets will allow it more like.
I agree total fantasy. No way it would happen, but there would be many last minute marginal "yes" voters maybe regretting it. I part company though on if the markets will allow it. I imagine much market pressure will be pushing the other way. By saying rUK has had a rethink opens up the all the "why" questions as to how much central control there will be? How will it all work in practice? To what extent will BoE cover Scotland? etc etc By simply saying "no CU, meant no CU" there's clarity, and all the questions go back north. Even in a worst case scenario an extra 8% of debts would not hole rUK below the waterline even if it wouldn't be smooth for a while.
But the central point is, having seen how Ireland, Greece, Portugal et al have nearly caused giant Germany huge headaches, it's just not politically possibly in rUK to sell a CU with Edinburgh, even if Scotland is far from being Greece or anything like it.
I think the YES campaign has made a lot of assumptions that nothing would change in rUK and its dealings with a new Scotland, when in reality it would, as you would've created a foreign country. England (well with Wales and NI attached but 90%+ would be England) would gain independence on Sep 19th too. Its interests are in creating a stable, rich "Canadian" style northern neighbour, but that's not the same as falling in line 100% of the time with Scotland. I can't imagine M Carney in his previous guise pitching up at the Federal Reserve and saying "I've got a great idea; let's share the Canadian Loonie with you", and getting anything but shown the door., if ever Canada perceived it was in its interests to create a "NAFTA Dollar".
I do believe you knocked what UKIP said when I linked to their proposal, even though you hadn't read it as you were "too busy" (pompous know-it-all- ness seems to be your standard response to any non Tory idea)
We could charge visitors entry fee to wards and when someone suggested making it free, the argument that they
"represent an important income stream to hospitals"
Would be as valid as the one you make now.. I would still say people should be able to visit their families in hospital for free and it was wrong they should be charged
When I visited my Dad in hospital in March 2010 I seriously couldn't believe we had to pay to use the car park.. such is life I thought
That was under a Labour government, now we have the other two in charge and it stays the same.. a new party makes it policy to scrap the charges and I agree.. so what?
I didn't knock it - it's just a populist idea. I just said it needed to be paid for (and I hadn't read UKIP's policy on how they were going to pay for it). @MikeK has since said it will be paid for by the tooth fairy; @RichardNabavi has sensible said that if the tooth fairy is giving us all this money is that what we would use it for first.
What we need is a sensible conversation about how to fund healthcare. Then we can get rid of silly add ons and non-transparent charges like parking.
Except its not the tooth fairy is it? More pompous blasé nothingness from you I am afraid
Wake Up! There is a party here now who WOULD do things that the other three wont consider, and don't mind upsetting the status quo to put local people first
You think there is a political party out there that *doesnt* want to raise more funds by collecting more money from foreigners who use the NHS? That the difficulty in maximising these revenues to date has simply been a failure of political will? I'm afraid that is the political equivalent of believing in the tooth fairy.
Sir Ian Botham left red-faced after penis tweet goes viral England cricket legend Sir Ian Botham says hackers are responsible for publishing an explicit picture of a man's genitalia on his Twitter timeline
It pains me to give credit to a LibDem (although, if one must, Steve Webb is one of the less painful to give credit to), but the more I look at the LibDem proposal for a flat rate 30% tax credit on pension contributions, the better it looks.
The first point to make is that, contrary to the headline on the Telegraph article taffys linked to earlier, this is not a proposal to abolish or (for most people) cut tax relief on pension contributions. Tax relief will remain, and in fact be increased from 20% to 30% for basic-rate taxpayers. For higher-rate taxpayers, it will also remain, but be limited to 30% rather than 40% as at present (or 45% for top-rate taxpayers).
What this means is that, for a net cost of (say) £1000 after tax, the effective contribution to the pension fund for a basic-rate taxpayer will increase from the current £1,250 to £1,429. For a 40% taxpayer the effective contribution reduces from £1,667 to the same £1,429.
[In all cases, as now there's an additional and substantial advantage in Employer pension contributions, because you also save Employer's and Employee's NI - the figures I've just quoted relate to an Employee contribution where there's no NI saving.]
So this is a good incentive to basic-rate taxpayers to make pension contributions, which is a Good Thing. Indeed, at present, I would say that pension contributions make only marginal sense for basic-rate taxpayers: given the hassle, inflexibility and risk of further government interference in pension funds, the current 20% tax relief is verging on not being enough to make pension saving worthwhile.
For higher rate taxpayers, of course it's not quite so attractive, but a reduction from the current 67% uplift on your after-tax cost to 43% is not the end of the world: it's still worth having, especially if you think you'll pay basic rate tax after retirement.
I don't know how much if any of a net saving to the Treasury this would bring, but on grounds of fairness and effectiveness of policy it looks very sensible. I can see some practical snags - it looks as though it could be unfair to some people whose income fluctuates a lot, and I'm not quite sure how it fits with Defined Benefit schemes. There is also the question of how it fits with the high effective marginal rates of tax at £100K and where Child Benefit is withdrawn. But, in principle, it seems well worth looking at as an idea.
Few minor errors or omissions in there Patrick. Lloyd's in your scenario would eb owned by the rUK and iScotland governments. Indeed. In the ratio 92/8 - but only after actual independence. Meanwhile all the decisions around what to do would be made by a certain G.Osborne esq. A new Scottish government would find itself the proud owner of 8% of an English corporation with all its key divisions registered in England.
... but your real whopper is assuming no CU, that is a long shot. You are in denial. That is not a river in Egypt. It is not politically do-able for English taxpayers to assume the (significant) risk of Scottish bank failure. All the main parties have unequivocally vetoed it. Labour have even promised to put this in their manifesto already. Tory and LibDem will surely do the same. The pound is the UK's currency and leaving the UK means leaving the pound. You ARE going to need that Plan B. (Actually you aren't ......) :-)
closer to 3% - the government only owns about 1/3 of LBG (haven't checked the precise number since the placing & can't be bothered to)
Fantasy to think anyone in Scotland would opt for a chance to go back. It will be down to negotiation then and whether they will cut off their nose to spite their face, or if the markets will allow it more like.
I agree total fantasy. No way it would happen, but there would be many last minute marginal "yes" voters maybe regretting it. I part company though on if the markets will allow it. I imagine much market pressure will be pushing the other way. By saying rUK has had a rethink opens up the all the "why" questions as to how much central control there will be? How will it all work in practice? To what extent will BoE cover Scotland? etc etc By simply saying "no CU, meant no CU" there's clarity, and all the questions go back north. Even in a worst case scenario an extra 8% of debts would not hole rUK below the waterline even if it wouldn't be smooth for a while.
But the central point is, having seen how Ireland, Greece, Portugal et al have nearly caused giant Germany huge headaches, it's just not politically possibly in rUK to sell a CU with Edinburgh, even if Scotland is far from being Greece or anything like it.
I think the YES campaign has made a lot of assumptions that nothing would change in rUK and its dealings with a new Scotland, when in reality it would, as you would've created a foreign country. England (well with Wales and NI attached but 90%+ would be England) would gain independence on Sep 19th too. Its interests are in creating a stable, rich "Canadian" style northern neighbour, but that's not the same as falling in line 100% of the time with Scotland. I can't imagine M Carney in his previous guise pitching up at the Federal Reserve and saying "I've got a great idea; let's share the Canadian Loonie with you", and getting anything but shown the door.
I agree , it will not be all sunshine. However I think once it is a done deal both sides will sit down and do what is sensible and that means making as few changes as possible re how we operate today. Any other scenario is stupid and expensive.
I'm sure they wouldnt want it characterised as a policy they were putting forward (that's not their role) but the Pension Policy Institute put out a very good paper on pension tax relief at 30% last year.
It's a pity none of the Scottish referendum polls seem to have regional breakdowns (although i haven't done much excavating in the fine print). We can guess that the Borders and Dumfries&Galloway are probably going to vote No fairly heavily, while the Western Isles are likely to vote Yes. But it would be interesting to have this confirmed by polling data. And to see how Edinburgh and Glasgow are likely to vote.
Andy , I have seen mention of votes by region somewhere , no idea where or if official polls etc but will see what I can find
Shetlanders first, British second, Norwegian third;
I do believe you knocked what UKIP said when I linked to their proposal, even though you hadn't read it as you were "too busy" (pompous know-it-all- ness seems to be your standard response to any non Tory idea)
We could charge visitors entry fee to wards and when someone suggested making it free, the argument that they
"represent an important income stream to hospitals"
Would be as valid as the one you make now.. I would still say people should be able to visit their families in hospital for free and it was wrong they should be charged
When I visited my Dad in hospital in March 2010 I seriously couldn't believe we had to pay to use the car park.. such is life I thought
That was under a Labour government, now we have the other two in charge and it stays the same.. a new party makes it policy to scrap the charges and I agree.. so what?
I didn't knock it - it's just a populist idea. I just said it needed to be paid for (and I hadn't read UKIP's policy on how they were going to pay for it). @MikeK has since said it will be paid for by the tooth fairy; @RichardNabavi has sensible said that if the tooth fairy is giving us all this money is that what we would use it for first.
What we need is a sensible conversation about how to fund healthcare. Then we can get rid of silly add ons and non-transparent charges like parking.
Except its not the tooth fairy is it? More pompous blasé nothingness from you I am afraid
Wake Up! There is a party here now who WOULD do things that the other three wont consider, and don't mind upsetting the status quo to put local people first
You think there is a political party out there that *doesnt* want to raise more funds by collecting more money from foreigners who use the NHS? That the difficulty in maximising these revenues to date has simply been a failure of political will? I'm afraid that is the political equivalent of believing in the tooth fairy.
So lets give up and tax British people with poorly relatives twice? I see
Few minor errors or omissions in there Patrick. Lloyd's in your scenario would eb owned by the rUK and iScotland governments. Indeed. In the ratio 92/8 - but only after actual independence. Meanwhile all the decisions around what to do would be made by a certain G.Osborne esq. A new Scottish government would find itself the proud owner of 8% of an English corporation with all its key divisions registered in England.
... but your real whopper is assuming no CU, that is a long shot. You are in denial. That is not a river in Egypt. It is not politically do-able for English taxpayers to assume the (significant) risk of Scottish bank failure. All the main parties have unequivocally vetoed it. Labour have even promised to put this in their manifesto already. Tory and LibDem will surely do the same. The pound is the UK's currency and leaving the UK means leaving the pound. You ARE going to need that Plan B. (Actually you aren't ......) :-)
Patrick your gullibility is refreshing , you mention Labour and promise in the same sentence. Plus who would trust a Tory , more reverse gears than Italian tanks and especially a lying Lib Dem. The Scottish banks will be covered with the Scottish share of the BofE and the English part with their share, it is a simple concept and they will have some agreed rules around how much each side can borrow etc.
Can you explain exactly how that would work.
I think you are talking about a split-off which would be amusing to watch
I do believe you knocked what UKIP said when I linked to their proposal, even though you hadn't read it as you were "too busy" (pompous know-it-all- ness seems to be your standard response to any non Tory idea)
We could charge visitors entry fee to wards and when someone suggested making it free, the argument that they
"represent an important income stream to hospitals"
Would be as valid as the one you make now.. I would still say people should be able to visit their families in hospital for free and it was wrong they should be charged
When I visited my Dad in hospital in March 2010 I seriously couldn't believe we had to pay to use the car park.. such is life I thought
That was under a Labour government, now we have the other two in charge and it stays the same.. a new party makes it policy to scrap the charges and I agree.. so what?
I didn't knock it - it's just a populist idea. I just said it needed to be paid for (and I hadn't read UKIP's policy on how they were going to pay for it). @MikeK has since said it will be paid for by the tooth fairy; @RichardNabavi has sensible said that if the tooth fairy is giving us all this money is that what we would use it for first.
What we need is a sensible conversation about how to fund healthcare. Then we can get rid of silly add ons and non-transparent charges like parking.
Except its not the tooth fairy is it? More pompous blasé nothingness from you I am afraid
Wake Up! There is a party here now who WOULD do things that the other three wont consider, and don't mind upsetting the status quo to put local people first
Sounds like your rallying cry should be...
"I am proud to have been capable of giving people hope again"
I'm sure François Hollande won't mind you borrowing it.
Right is right and wrong is wrong. I am not interested in who said what, its the idea that counts
Mr. Owls, you haven't become a roving reporter for The Daily Mash [which had a horrendous screen-wide ad when I visited it today...], have you?
Reminds me of a story me and and a friend came up with. Mickey Mouse was 'sailing' across the Atlantic in a beer barrel, equipped only with a road map of Rio de Janeiro.
It's a pity none of the Scottish referendum polls seem to have regional breakdowns (although i haven't done much excavating in the fine print). We can guess that the Borders and Dumfries&Galloway are probably going to vote No fairly heavily, while the Western Isles are likely to vote Yes. But it would be interesting to have this confirmed by polling data. And to see how Edinburgh and Glasgow are likely to vote.
Andy , I have seen mention of votes by region somewhere , no idea where or if official polls etc but will see what I can find
Thanks Malcolm. A bit lazy of me not to do a thorough search.
It's a pity none of the Scottish referendum polls seem to have regional breakdowns (although i haven't done much excavating in the fine print). We can guess that the Borders and Dumfries&Galloway are probably going to vote No fairly heavily, while the Western Isles are likely to vote Yes. But it would be interesting to have this confirmed by polling data. And to see how Edinburgh and Glasgow are likely to vote.
Andy , I have seen mention of votes by region somewhere , no idea where or if official polls etc but will see what I can find
Thanks Malcolm. A bit lazy of me not to do a thorough search.
I do believe you knocked what UKIP said when I linked to their proposal, even though you hadn't read it as you were "too busy" (pompous know-it-all- ness seems to be your standard response to any non Tory idea)
We could charge visitors entry fee to wards and when someone suggested making it free, the argument that they
"represent an important income stream to hospitals"
Would be as valid as the one you make now.. I would still say people should be able to visit their families in hospital for free and it was wrong they should be charged
When I visited my Dad in hospital in March 2010 I seriously couldn't believe we had to pay to use the car park.. such is life I thought
That was under a Labour government, now we have the other two in charge and it stays the same.. a new party makes it policy to scrap the charges and I agree.. so what?
I didn't knock it - it's just a populist idea. I just said it needed to be paid for (and I hadn't read UKIP's policy on how they were going to pay for it). @MikeK has since said it will be paid for by the tooth fairy; @RichardNabavi has sensible said that if the tooth fairy is giving us all this money is that what we would use it for first.
What we need is a sensible conversation about how to fund healthcare. Then we can get rid of silly add ons and non-transparent charges like parking.
Except its not the tooth fairy is it? More pompous blasé nothingness from you I am afraid
Wake Up! There is a party here now who WOULD do things that the other three wont consider, and don't mind upsetting the status quo to put local people first
You think there is a political party out there that *doesnt* want to raise more funds by collecting more money from foreigners who use the NHS? That the difficulty in maximising these revenues to date has simply been a failure of political will? I'm afraid that is the political equivalent of believing in the tooth fairy.
So lets give up and tax British people with poorly relatives twice? I see
I (like Charles with his tooth fairy comment) was referring to the funding of the policy. Feel free to change the subject to the spending side but you're not fooling anyone (except, perhaps, yourself).
Few minor errors or omissions in there Patrick. Lloyd's in your scenario would eb owned by the rUK and iScotland governments. Indeed. In the ratio 92/8 - but only after actual independence. Meanwhile all the decisions around what to do would be made by a certain G.Osborne esq. A new Scottish government would find itself the proud owner of 8% of an English corporation with all its key divisions registered in England.
... but your real whopper is assuming no CU, that is a long shot. You are in denial. That is not a river in Egypt. It is not politically do-able for English taxpayers to assume the (significant) risk of Scottish bank failure. All the main parties have unequivocally vetoed it. Labour have even promised to put this in their manifesto already. Tory and LibDem will surely do the same. The pound is the UK's currency and leaving the UK means leaving the pound. You ARE going to need that Plan B. (Actually you aren't ......) :-)
Patrick your gullibility is refreshing , you mention Labour and promise in the same sentence. Plus who would trust a Tory , more reverse gears than Italian tanks and especially a lying Lib Dem. The Scottish banks will be covered with the Scottish share of the BofE and the English part with their share, it is a simple concept and they will have some agreed rules around how much each side can borrow etc.
Can you explain exactly how that would work.
I think you are talking about a split-off which would be amusing to watch
No I don't think I was , but Scotland will get a share of current UK reserves and will cover its own liabilities , by that I do not mean the imaginary ones that unionists try to pretend are there. The English parts of the current UK banks will look after their parts, ie Lloyd's , Nat West and Halifax.
PS: Thinking you are smart is not the same as being smart.
I do believe you knocked what UKIP said when I linked to their proposal, even though you hadn't read it as you were "too busy" (pompous know-it-all- ness seems to be your standard response to any non Tory idea)
We could charge visitors entry fee to wards and when someone suggested making it free, the argument that they
"represent an important income stream to hospitals"
Would be as valid as the one you make now.. I would still say people should be able to visit their families in hospital for free and it was wrong they should be charged
When I visited my Dad in hospital in March 2010 I seriously couldn't believe we had to pay to use the car park.. such is life I thought
That was under a Labour government, now we have the other two in charge and it stays the same.. a new party makes it policy to scrap the charges and I agree.. so what?
I didn't knock it - it's just a populist idea. I just said it needed to be paid for (and I hadn't read UKIP's policy on how they were going to pay for it). @MikeK has since said it will be paid for by the tooth fairy; @RichardNabavi has sensible said that if the tooth fairy is giving us all this money is that what we would use it for first.
What we need is a sensible conversation about how to fund healthcare. Then we can get rid of silly add ons and non-transparent charges like parking.
Except its not the tooth fairy is it? More pompous blasé nothingness from you I am afraid
Wake Up! There is a party here now who WOULD do things that the other three wont consider, and don't mind upsetting the status quo to put local people first
Sorry, the "tooth fairy" was an metaphor. I meant that I am cynical about "clamping down on health tourism" as a source of funds.
Ok. How would you identify "health tourists". Perhaps UK citizens should be required to carry their NHS cards with them at all times, in case they are knocked over by a bus?
And how much would it cost to establish the necessary administrative facilities to bill and chase payment? And what percentage of accounts payable would be settled?
The reason why UKIP "WOULD" do these things is because they are populists. They don't have a credible programme for government because - to be fair - they don't need one.
"parking charges represent an important income stream to hospitals"
then say
"does anyone know what proportion of NHS funding (or simply hospital funding) comes from parking charges? I've no idea, but would guess it's a fairly small proportion"
True, I'm a bit doubtful about that bit of the post, but agree with the general theme that parking charges are a somewhat random tax on hospital use and this sort of thing should be looked at in a wider review of what the hospitals do and how they get the money to do it.
If 200 people use it a day at £5 a go, that's £365,000 per year. [made up numbers]
That's an "important income stream" for a hospital in my view. It would, for instance, cover the annual cost of 2 MRI scanners. (£1.5m capital cost, 10 year lifespan)
A tory in favour of taxing people twice to pay for state healthcare, they really are becoming "progressive"
No, I'm in favour of a sensible conversation on how we fund healthcare.
I do believe you knocked what UKIP said when I linked to their proposal, even though you hadn't read it as you were "too busy" (pompous know-it-all- ness seems to be your standard response to any non Tory idea)
We could charge visitors entry fee to wards and when someone suggested making it free, the argument that they
"represent an important income stream to hospitals"
Would be as valid as the one you make now.. I would still say people should be able to visit their families in hospital for free and it was wrong they should be charged
When I visited my Dad in hospital in March 2010 I seriously couldn't believe we had to pay to use the car park.. such is life I thought
That was under a Labour government, now we have the other two in charge and it stays the same.. a new party makes it policy to scrap the charges and I agree.. so what?
I didn't knock it - it's just a populist idea. I just said it needed to be paid for (and I hadn't read UKIP's policy on how they were going to pay for it). @MikeK has since said it will be paid for by the tooth fairy; @RichardNabavi has sensible said that if the tooth fairy is giving us all this money is that what we would use it for first.
What we need is a sensible conversation about how to fund healthcare. Then we can get rid of silly add ons and non-transparent charges like parking.
Except its not the tooth fairy is it? More pompous blasé nothingness from you I am afraid
Wake Up! There is a party here now who WOULD do things that the other three wont consider, and don't mind upsetting the status quo to put local people first
You think there is a political party out there that *doesnt* want to raise more funds by collecting more money from foreigners who use the NHS? That the difficulty in maximising these revenues to date has simply been a failure of political will? I'm afraid that is the political equivalent of believing in the tooth fairy.
So lets give up and tax British people with poorly relatives twice? I see
I (like Charles with his tooth fairy comment) was referring to the funding of the policy. Feel free to change the subject to the spending side but you're not fooling anyone (except, perhaps, yourself).
I do believe you knocked what UKIP said when I linked to their proposal, even though you hadn't read it as you were "too busy" (pompous know-it-all- ness seems to be your standard response to any non Tory idea)
We could charge visitors entry fee to wards and when someone suggested making it free, the argument that they
"represent an important income stream to hospitals"
Would be as valid as the one you make now.. I would still say people should be able to visit their families in hospital for free and it was wrong they should be charged
When I visited my Dad in hospital in March 2010 I seriously couldn't believe we had to pay to use the car park.. such is life I thought
That was under a Labour government, now we have the other two in charge and it stays the same.. a new party makes it policy to scrap the charges and I agree.. so what?
I didn't knock it - it's just a populist idea. I just said it needed to be paid for (and I hadn't read UKIP's policy on how they were going to pay for it). @MikeK has since said it will be paid for by the tooth fairy; @RichardNabavi has sensible said that if the tooth fairy is giving us all this money is that what we would use it for first.
What we need is a sensible conversation about how to fund healthcare. Then we can get rid of silly add ons and non-transparent charges like parking.
Except its not the tooth fairy is it? More pompous blasé nothingness from you I am afraid
Wake Up! There is a party here now who WOULD do things that the other three wont consider, and don't mind upsetting the status quo to put local people first
Er, mandating what a local hospital can and can't charge for is hardly putting local people first...
I do believe you knocked what UKIP said when I linked to their proposal, even though you hadn't read it as you were "too busy" (pompous know-it-all- ness seems to be your standard response to any non Tory idea)
We could charge visitors entry fee to wards and when someone suggested making it free, the argument that they
"represent an important income stream to hospitals"
Would be as valid as the one you make now.. I would still say people should be able to visit their families in hospital for free and it was wrong they should be charged
When I visited my Dad in hospital in March 2010 I seriously couldn't believe we had to pay to use the car park.. such is life I thought
That was under a Labour government, now we have the other two in charge and it stays the same.. a new party makes it policy to scrap the charges and I agree.. so what?
I didn't knock it - it's just a populist idea. I just said it needed to be paid for (and I hadn't read UKIP's policy on how they were going to pay for it). @MikeK has since said it will be paid for by the tooth fairy; @RichardNabavi has sensible said that if the tooth fairy is giving us all this money is that what we would use it for first.
What we need is a sensible conversation about how to fund healthcare. Then we can get rid of silly add ons and non-transparent charges like parking.
Except its not the tooth fairy is it? More pompous blasé nothingness from you I am afraid
Wake Up! There is a party here now who WOULD do things that the other three wont consider, and don't mind upsetting the status quo to put local people first
You think there is a political party out there that *doesnt* want to raise more funds by collecting more money from foreigners who use the NHS? That the difficulty in maximising these revenues to date has simply been a failure of political will? I'm afraid that is the political equivalent of believing in the tooth fairy.
So lets give up and tax British people with poorly relatives twice? I see
It's not taxing twice, it's taxing in two different ways.
Assuming spending/borrowing remains the same, then if you abolish parking charges you need to raise taxes to bridge the funding gap.
I dislike hidden "add on" charges and like simplicity and transparency
Sir Ian Botham left red-faced after penis tweet goes viral England cricket legend Sir Ian Botham says hackers are responsible for publishing an explicit picture of a man's genitalia on his Twitter timeline
Curiously there was a man dressed as a penis with accompanying accoutrements at the Oval on Saturday. He was told to either remove the outfit or himself.
I did spend some time reflecting on the sort of thought process which concluded coming to the cricket dressed as a penis was a good idea. I kinda struggled TBH.
It's a pity none of the Scottish referendum polls seem to have regional breakdowns (although i haven't done much excavating in the fine print). We can guess that the Borders and Dumfries&Galloway are probably going to vote No fairly heavily, while the Western Isles are likely to vote Yes. But it would be interesting to have this confirmed by polling data. And to see how Edinburgh and Glasgow are likely to vote.
Survation does - usual caveats re small sub-sample sizes apply.
Comments
At least try to stay consistent.
PS , Salmond is being too nice for me , I would kick some butt and issue a few real threats.
It's like a work colleague leaving for a much better job - one that you fancied. Although you wish them well, if they return temporarily to root round and steal the best bits of yours, you might tell them to ... desist.
Of course, your nature might be much more noble.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/hilarywardle/the-best-of-the-internets-reaction-to-alex-salmon-aplm
Both polls weighted so they have the same number of respondents:
Forced others to be 8% and came up with the following:
CON 502 32%
LAB 583 38%
LD 116 7%
UKIP 228 15%
(Pseudo) Sample size 1429
If you are looking for caveats the biggest is probably that I've made no attempt to correct for certainty to vote.
I simply cannot see how rUK politicians can back track on "no currency union", given the publicity it is generating, the harm it would do to any party that broke ranks on this ("soft on the Scots" is not going to win elections in Nuneaton, or Widnes, - or even Cardiff I might add), and the fact that the risk of having to bail out a future RBS far outweighs any Trident relocation cost or whatever else Scotland says it would do by refusing a debt share.
Surely the nightmare scenario is a narrow Yes win (still think it'll be No but a big Yes seems the least likely case), followed by the realisation rUK meant every word of it and there's no currency union. Would there be demands north of the border for a revote on the grounds of "ah well if I'd known they meant it, I would've voted No"?
Too late by then, as I firmly believe the atmosphere in rUK will be "you've made your bed now lie in it". Not that many firm Yes voters will care, and fair enough. There will be all kinds of financial and other dislocation and rough waters on both sides of the border for sure, but I still cannot see anyone agreeing to share the Pound in a currency union.
"You seem to see this as some sort of bizarre zero-sum-game."
Nope, too complicated for my poor brain. I'm sure some people vote on sound logic, but I suspect it's not the majority.
I think voting Green is a vote for emotion rather than logic, but you're fully entitled to do so.
And politicians often take notice of the votes not the sound logic.
Surely the 5/2 was wrong, meaning the 2/7 No was a great bet?
I am holding a Ladbrokes ticket that says "UKIP TO WIN THURROCK 16/1" ... seldom wrong?
Ladbrokes were odds against UKIP/Cons in the Euros when UKIP were 2/1 and Cons 10/1, I highlighted this bet constantly on here
Nice guy, probably good odds compiler, but seldom wrong is a stretch
What we need is a sensible conversation about how to fund healthcare. Then we can get rid of silly add ons and non-transparent charges like parking.
Sir Ian Botham left red-faced after penis tweet goes viral
England cricket legend Sir Ian Botham says hackers are responsible for publishing an explicit picture of a man's genitalia on his Twitter timeline
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/11040983/Sir-Ian-Botham-left-red-faced-after-penis-tweet-goes-viral.html
It all depends on your definition of seldom.
Wake Up! There is a party here now who WOULD do things that the other three wont consider, and don't mind upsetting the status quo to put local people first
I think the real fireworks of a negotiation would come when the CU is actually vetoed and then Salmond tries to wriggle out of the 8% debt. Could get very, very nasty from that point.
That's an "important income stream" for a hospital in my view. It would, for instance, cover the annual cost of 2 MRI scanners. (£1.5m capital cost, 10 year lifespan)
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Post-Independence-Debate-Poll-tables.pdf
Ipsos-Mori have an urban/rural split
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Scotland/scotland-opinion-monitor-august-2014-tables.pdf
The Bulgarian national had set out from Christchurch Harbour on Saturday when a passing yachtsman saw he looked seasick as he ventured into choppy seas.
Initially, the man refused help, but was eventually dragged on to an RNLI lifeboat and brought to shore.
The RNLI said the man, whose only navigational aid was a street map of Southampton, faced certain death.
"I am proud to have been capable of giving people hope again"
I'm sure François Hollande won't mind you borrowing it.
Edit: Link here
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/jun/09/nhs-generating-millions-parking-charges
Fantasy to think anyone in Scotland would opt for a chance to go back. It will be down to negotiation then and whether they will cut off their nose to spite their face, or if the markets will allow it more like.
@malcolmg
I agree total fantasy. No way it would happen, but there would be many last minute marginal "yes" voters maybe regretting it. I part company though on if the markets will allow it. I imagine much market pressure will be pushing the other way. By saying rUK has had a rethink opens up the all the "why" questions as to how much central control there will be? How will it all work in practice? To what extent will BoE cover Scotland? etc etc By simply saying "no CU, meant no CU" there's clarity, and all the questions go back north. Even in a worst case scenario an extra 8% of debts would not hole rUK below the waterline even if it wouldn't be smooth for a while.
But the central point is, having seen how Ireland, Greece, Portugal et al have nearly caused giant Germany huge headaches, it's just not politically possibly in rUK to sell a CU with Edinburgh, even if Scotland is far from being Greece or anything like it.
I think the YES campaign has made a lot of assumptions that nothing would change in rUK and its dealings with a new Scotland, when in reality it would, as you would've created a foreign country. England (well with Wales and NI attached but 90%+ would be England) would gain independence on Sep 19th too. Its interests are in creating a stable, rich "Canadian" style northern neighbour, but that's not the same as falling in line 100% of the time with Scotland. I can't imagine M Carney in his previous guise pitching up at the Federal Reserve and saying "I've got a great idea; let's share the Canadian Loonie with you", and getting anything but shown the door., if ever Canada perceived it was in its interests to create a "NAFTA Dollar".
The first point to make is that, contrary to the headline on the Telegraph article taffys linked to earlier, this is not a proposal to abolish or (for most people) cut tax relief on pension contributions. Tax relief will remain, and in fact be increased from 20% to 30% for basic-rate taxpayers. For higher-rate taxpayers, it will also remain, but be limited to 30% rather than 40% as at present (or 45% for top-rate taxpayers).
What this means is that, for a net cost of (say) £1000 after tax, the effective contribution to the pension fund for a basic-rate taxpayer will increase from the current £1,250 to £1,429. For a 40% taxpayer the effective contribution reduces from £1,667 to the same £1,429.
[In all cases, as now there's an additional and substantial advantage in Employer pension contributions, because you also save Employer's and Employee's NI - the figures I've just quoted relate to an Employee contribution where there's no NI saving.]
So this is a good incentive to basic-rate taxpayers to make pension contributions, which is a Good Thing. Indeed, at present, I would say that pension contributions make only marginal sense for basic-rate taxpayers: given the hassle, inflexibility and risk of further government interference in pension funds, the current 20% tax relief is verging on not being enough to make pension saving worthwhile.
For higher rate taxpayers, of course it's not quite so attractive, but a reduction from the current 67% uplift on your after-tax cost to 43% is not the end of the world: it's still worth having, especially if you think you'll pay basic rate tax after retirement.
I don't know how much if any of a net saving to the Treasury this would bring, but on grounds of fairness and effectiveness of policy it looks very sensible. I can see some practical snags - it looks as though it could be unfair to some people whose income fluctuates a lot, and I'm not quite sure how it fits with Defined Benefit schemes. There is also the question of how it fits with the high effective marginal rates of tax at £100K and where Child Benefit is withdrawn. But, in principle, it seems well worth looking at as an idea.
I agree total fantasy. No way it would happen, but there would be many last minute marginal "yes" voters maybe regretting it. I part company though on if the markets will allow it. I imagine much market pressure will be pushing the other way. By saying rUK has had a rethink opens up the all the "why" questions as to how much central control there will be? How will it all work in practice? To what extent will BoE cover Scotland? etc etc By simply saying "no CU, meant no CU" there's clarity, and all the questions go back north. Even in a worst case scenario an extra 8% of debts would not hole rUK below the waterline even if it wouldn't be smooth for a while.
But the central point is, having seen how Ireland, Greece, Portugal et al have nearly caused giant Germany huge headaches, it's just not politically possibly in rUK to sell a CU with Edinburgh, even if Scotland is far from being Greece or anything like it.
I think the YES campaign has made a lot of assumptions that nothing would change in rUK and its dealings with a new Scotland, when in reality it would, as you would've created a foreign country. England (well with Wales and NI attached but 90%+ would be England) would gain independence on Sep 19th too. Its interests are in creating a stable, rich "Canadian" style northern neighbour, but that's not the same as falling in line 100% of the time with Scotland. I can't imagine M Carney in his previous guise pitching up at the Federal Reserve and saying "I've got a great idea; let's share the Canadian Loonie with you", and getting anything but shown the door.
I agree , it will not be all sunshine. However I think once it is a done deal both sides will sit down and do what is sensible and that means making as few changes as possible re how we operate today. Any other scenario is stupid and expensive.
I'm sure they wouldnt want it characterised as a policy they were putting forward (that's not their role) but the Pension Policy Institute put out a very good paper on pension tax relief at 30% last year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10599042/Shetland-islands-consider-impact-of-Scottish-independence.html
Just keep your greedy Ayrshire hands off our oil.
I think you are talking about a split-off which would be amusing to watch
Reminds me of a story me and and a friend came up with. Mickey Mouse was 'sailing' across the Atlantic in a beer barrel, equipped only with a road map of Rio de Janeiro.
http://election-data.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/scottish-independence-regional-polling.html
PS: Thinking you are smart is not the same as being smart.
Ok. How would you identify "health tourists". Perhaps UK citizens should be required to carry their NHS cards with them at all times, in case they are knocked over by a bus?
And how much would it cost to establish the necessary administrative facilities to bill and chase payment? And what percentage of accounts payable would be settled?
The reason why UKIP "WOULD" do these things is because they are populists. They don't have a credible programme for government because - to be fair - they don't need one.
i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03009/mv_3009613a.jpg
Assuming spending/borrowing remains the same, then if you abolish parking charges you need to raise taxes to bridge the funding gap.
I dislike hidden "add on" charges and like simplicity and transparency
I did spend some time reflecting on the sort of thought process which concluded coming to the cricket dressed as a penis was a good idea. I kinda struggled TBH.