Indy odds out to 3.6 on Betfair but once again there's a big wash of money suddenly come in to support that price down to 3.5 and to keep No at 1.38-1.39.
I'd love a more detailed view of the betting patterens ecause it certainly seems like the liquidity in the market comes in big, easy to spot chunks. Some of the big price falls and rises have occurred on very small amounts of cash.
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
Want to expand on that?
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?
It would be good to see proper research but other obvious possibilities are: 1) Less shitty economy, near-perfect Chancellor etc. 2) Lack of identity papers for people in the country legally, which makes things easier to be there illegally. 3) English language. 4) People want to go to places where they have friends or family which is true of any country, but you see people camping out at the UK border because there's a UK border. You don't see the people with friends and family in Germany camping out at the German border because they've just gone to Germany.
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
Want to expand on that?
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?
A life on benefits with housing and free education is heaven compared to the economic life where many of the African immigrants come from.
Maybe I'm being completely dim, but still cannot see what the downside to England of Scotland going actually is.
We stop subsidising Scotland by £20bn a year at least Any business of any scale will move its tax base to England We lose only 8% of the population Plymouth & Portsmouth get all the naval work No more Scottish Labour MP's voting on purely English matters
Alternatively, a new Scottish currency could appreciate compared to Sterling, as it would at least have the support of North Sea oil income. You would expect that Sterling - North Sea oil would be a far weaker currency than at present. Then Scottish homeowners could be seeing their mortgage payments cut drastically in an instant.
How much worse does the English trade deficit get if you take out North Sea Oil?
Horses for courses.
If you treat the McPoond as a petro currency then the rest of scottish goods get hammered on the exchange rate and industry hollows out, nobody goes to the Edinburgh Festival because it's too expensive and the natives go on lots of shopping trips to Newcastle.
Then when oil tanks, as it must, you've got Middlesboro in kilts.
There are upsides and downsides to both a strong or a weak currency, but I dislike the intellectual dishonesty of always finding the angle that is disastrous for Scotland.
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
Want to expand on that?
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?
It would be good to see proper research but other obvious possibilities are: 1) Less shitty economy, near-perfect Chancellor etc. 2) Lack of identity papers for people in the country legally, which makes things easier to be there illegally. 3) English language. 4) People want to go to places where they have friends or family which is true of any country, but you see people camping out at the UK border because there's a UK border. You don't see the people with friends and family in Germany camping out at the border because they've just gone to Germany.
They all look like sensible reasons to me. And even if there are a thousand people camped in Calais trying to get to the UK that's a tiny proportion of even just the number of people who have fled Syria in the last year.
Indy odds out to 3.6 on Betfair but once again there's a big wash of money suddenly come in to support that price down to 3.5 and to keep No at 1.38-1.39.
I'd love a more detailed view of the betting patterens ecause it certainly seems like the liquidity in the market comes in big, easy to spot chunks. Some of the big price falls and rises have occurred on very small amounts of cash.
Are bookie on BetFair? Are they allowed to be (if, say, Labrokes cutting its odds would shape its own market)?
Alternatively, a new Scottish currency could appreciate compared to Sterling, as it would at least have the support of North Sea oil income. You would expect that Sterling - North Sea oil would be a far weaker currency than at present. Then Scottish homeowners could be seeing their mortgage payments cut drastically in an instant.
How much worse does the English trade deficit get if you take out North Sea Oil?
Horses for courses.
If you treat the McPoond as a petro currency then the rest of scottish goods get hammered on the exchange rate and industry hollows out, nobody goes to the Edinburgh Festival because it's too expensive and the natives go on lots of shopping trips to Newcastle.
Then when oil tanks, as it must, you've got Middlesboro in kilts.
There are upsides and downsides to both a strong or a weak currency, but I dislike the intellectual dishonesty of always finding the angle that is disastrous for Scotland.
yes I agree with you, whatever happens change will bring side effects for both sides of the border and pretending otherwise achieves nothing.
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
Want to expand on that?
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?
It would be good to see proper research but other obvious possibilities are: 1) Less shitty economy, near-perfect Chancellor etc. 2) Lack of identity papers for people in the country legally, which makes things easier to be there illegally. 3) English language. 4) People want to go to places where they have friends or family which is true of any country, but you see people camping out at the UK border because there's a UK border. You don't see the people with friends and family in Germany camping out at the border because they've just gone to Germany.
They all look like sensible reasons to me. And even if there are a thousand people camped in Calais trying to get to the UK that's a tiny proportion of even just the number of people who have fled Syria in the last year.
More concerning Neil, why does nobody want to go to Ireland ?
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
Want to expand on that?
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?
It would be good to see proper research but other obvious possibilities are: 1) Less shitty economy, near-perfect Chancellor etc. 2) Lack of identity papers for people in the country legally, which makes things easier to be there illegally. 3) English language. 4) People want to go to places where they have friends or family which is true of any country, but you see people camping out at the UK border because there's a UK border. You don't see the people with friends and family in Germany camping out at the border because they've just gone to Germany.
They all look like sensible reasons to me. And even if there are a thousand people camped in Calais trying to get to the UK that's a tiny proportion of even just the number of people who have fled Syria in the last year.
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
Want to expand on that?
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?
It would be good to see proper research but other obvious possibilities are: 1) Less shitty economy, near-perfect Chancellor etc. 2) Lack of identity papers for people in the country legally, which makes things easier to be there illegally. 3) English language. 4) People want to go to places where they have friends or family which is true of any country, but you see people camping out at the UK border because there's a UK border. You don't see the people with friends and family in Germany camping out at the border because they've just gone to Germany.
They all look like sensible reasons to me. And even if there are a thousand people camped in Calais trying to get to the UK that's a tiny proportion of even just the number of people who have fled Syria in the last year.
More concerning Neil, why does nobody want to go to Ireland ?
Maybe I'm being completely dim, but still cannot see what the downside to England of Scotland going actually is.
We stop subsidising Scotland by £20bn a year at least Any business of any scale will move its tax base to England We lose only 8% of the population Plymouth & Portsmouth get all the naval work No more Scottish Labour MP's voting on purely English matters
Sentiment is the only downside.
Logically we should persuading Wales to follow ,,,
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
Want to expand on that?
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?
It would be good to see proper research but other obvious possibilities are: 1) Less shitty economy, near-perfect Chancellor etc. 2) Lack of identity papers for people in the country legally, which makes things easier to be there illegally. 3) English language. 4) People want to go to places where they have friends or family which is true of any country, but you see people camping out at the UK border because there's a UK border. You don't see the people with friends and family in Germany camping out at the border because they've just gone to Germany.
They all look like sensible reasons to me. And even if there are a thousand people camped in Calais trying to get to the UK that's a tiny proportion of even just the number of people who have fled Syria in the last year.
The smart ones go to Sweden where they can get automatic refugee status. They can then apply for Swedish citizenship in a few years, and travel to London via EU's freedom of movement. It's what a lot of Somali asylum seekers have done via France.
Lesley Riddoch in the Scotsman on how BT are messing up. Inter aliis
" Meanwhile, with consummate bad timing, the Commons expenses watchdog has confirmed MPs’ pay will rise by 10 per cent next year, taking salaries to £74,000. "
IndyRef is producing endless amusement, but that is the funniest reason I've yet seen for breaking up a 300-year old union, with all the risks to the Scottish economy which that entails.
Maybe I'm being completely dim, but still cannot see what the downside to England of Scotland going actually is.
We stop subsidising Scotland by £20bn a year at least Any business of any scale will move its tax base to England We lose only 8% of the population Plymouth & Portsmouth get all the naval work No more Scottish Labour MP's voting on purely English matters
Whether we subsidise Scotland at all is a moot point and we could debate it until the cows come home without ever reaching a conclusion. There are some downsides to Scotland going such as the damage to our already ghastly balance of trade. However, on the whole I am damned if I can see a positive case for keeping the Union from either side.
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
Want to expand on that?
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?
It would be good to see proper research but other obvious possibilities are: 1) Less shitty economy, near-perfect Chancellor etc. 2) Lack of identity papers for people in the country legally, which makes things easier to be there illegally. 3) English language. 4) People want to go to places where they have friends or family which is true of any country, but you see people camping out at the UK border because there's a UK border. You don't see the people with friends and family in Germany camping out at the border because they've just gone to Germany.
They all look like sensible reasons to me. And even if there are a thousand people camped in Calais trying to get to the UK that's a tiny proportion of even just the number of people who have fled Syria in the last year.
More concerning Neil, why does nobody want to go to Ireland ?
There's plenty of empty housing for them.
1 million empty houses, higher benefits than the UK, the famous Irish welcome ( cough, cough ) higher average slaries and lots of open space. Yet no influx.
Far too much stuff about the Scots hating the English. That does not explain what is going on. Surely it is pretty simple. Scotland has a long history as an independent nation. It is part of a union in which there are two major political parties, Labour and Conservative. One of those parties is next to irrelevant in Scotland. The Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland at the last general election, yet they are governing over the Scots as the dominant party of government (most don't think the Lib Dems matter much). Of course they aren't going to be happy!
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
Want to expand on that?
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?
It would be good to see proper research but other obvious possibilities are: 1) Less shitty economy, near-perfect Chancellor etc. 2) Lack of identity papers for people in the country legally, which makes things easier to be there illegally. 3) English language. 4) People want to go to places where they have friends or family which is true of any country, but you see people camping out at the UK border because there's a UK border. You don't see the people with friends and family in Germany camping out at the border because they've just gone to Germany.
They all look like sensible reasons to me. And even if there are a thousand people camped in Calais trying to get to the UK that's a tiny proportion of even just the number of people who have fled Syria in the last year.
More concerning Neil, why does nobody want to go to Ireland ?
Proportionately far more people emigrated to Ireland than to the UK over the last year for which statistics are available.
I'd rather they had independence than gift them Devomax anyway. The current set up is bad enough.
The Union shouldn't favour Scotland financially over the other nations.
English politicians offering Devomax and more treats for the north will be slaughtered at the polls.
Devomax (proper devomax, not devo-a-little-wee-bittockie-more-maybe like this week) would not be a matter of giving treats to the north - the Scots would keep their own resources and fend for themselves, and charged a sub for foreign affairs and defence etc. Subsidy junkie problem solved. What's not to like for a DM reader?
So you wouldn't come crawling for extra wee handouts when the oil run outs?
The issue isn't oil running out, it's oil maintaining its current high price. The first peak oil was based on volume the second is based on price.
The USA has quickly moved from being an oil importer to being able to export oil. Currently legislation from 40 years ago stops major exporting but this is now being challenged not least becasue the USA has a BOP problem worse than ours.
So the premium on oil because it comes from unstable nations run by whackjobs may gradually start to disappear. Then add in the growth of renewables.
As well as the global oil price, the other factor is extracting more oil from N Sea fields that are already mature. The more oil you try to extract from a mature field, in general the more costly the oil becomes. So owners of mature fields may decide just to cap those fields, if that oil becomes more expensive than the global price.
Exactly right. There is said to be more tin still underground, in Cornwall, than has ever been mined. Yet all the mines are shut. It's just not economic to get it out.
So Cornwall has theoretically 8 billion pounds' worth of tin reserves, yet it is entirely illusory. In the real world it has none.
One mine was almost re-opened following large increases in the price of tin - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Crofty - but it seems that UNESCO put the nail in the coffin of the latest attempt for farcical reasons.
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
Want to expand on that?
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?
It would be good to see proper research but other obvious possibilities are: 1) Less shitty economy, near-perfect Chancellor etc. 2) Lack of identity papers for people in the country legally, which makes things easier to be there illegally. 3) English language. 4) People want to go to places where they have friends or family which is true of any country, but you see people camping out at the UK border because there's a UK border. You don't see the people with friends and family in Germany camping out at the border because they've just gone to Germany.
They all look like sensible reasons to me. And even if there are a thousand people camped in Calais trying to get to the UK that's a tiny proportion of even just the number of people who have fled Syria in the last year.
More concerning Neil, why does nobody want to go to Ireland ?
There's plenty of empty housing for them.
1 million empty houses, higher benefits than the UK, the famous Irish welcome ( cough, cough ) higher average slaries and lots of open space. Yet no influx.
There is an influx - over 60,000 in the last year for which data is available.
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
Want to expand on that?
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?
It would be good to see proper research but other obvious possibilities are: 1) Less shitty economy, near-perfect Chancellor etc. 2) Lack of identity papers for people in the country legally, which makes things easier to be there illegally. 3) English language. 4) People want to go to places where they have friends or family which is true of any country, but you see people camping out at the UK border because there's a UK border. You don't see the people with friends and family in Germany camping out at the border because they've just gone to Germany.
They all look like sensible reasons to me. And even if there are a thousand people camped in Calais trying to get to the UK that's a tiny proportion of even just the number of people who have fled Syria in the last year.
More concerning Neil, why does nobody want to go to Ireland ?
Proportionately far more people emigrated to Ireland than to the UK over the last year for which statistics are available.
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
Want to expand on that?
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?
It would be good to see proper research but other obvious possibilities are: 1) Less shitty economy, near-perfect Chancellor etc. 2) Lack of identity papers for people in the country legally, which makes things easier to be there illegally. 3) English language. 4) People want to go to places where they have friends or family which is true of any country, but you see people camping out at the UK border because there's a UK border. You don't see the people with friends and family in Germany camping out at the border because they've just gone to Germany.
They all look like sensible reasons to me. And even if there are a thousand people camped in Calais trying to get to the UK that's a tiny proportion of even just the number of people who have fled Syria in the last year.
More concerning Neil, why does nobody want to go to Ireland ?
Proportionately far more people emigrated to Ireland than to the UK over the last year for which statistics are available.
People returning from Cheltenham don't count.
The vast majority of immigrants to Ireland are foreigners and not returning nationals.
Lesley Riddoch in the Scotsman on how BT are messing up. Inter aliis
" Meanwhile, with consummate bad timing, the Commons expenses watchdog has confirmed MPs’ pay will rise by 10 per cent next year, taking salaries to £74,000. "
IndyRef is producing endless amusement, but that is the funniest reason I've yet seen for breaking up a 300-year old union, with all the risks to the Scottish economy which that entails.
You appear (perhaps deliberately) to miss the point about public perceptions running up to a referendum that is, in part, about comparing respective forms of governance. You're usually a bit sharper than that.
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
Want to expand on that?
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?
A life on benefits with housing and free education is heaven compared to the economic life where many of the African immigrants come from.
According to UNICEF Africa's population will jump from 1.1bn to 4.2bn at the end of this century. Almost all of them would move here if they could. Our country is being literally invaded and our response is to shrug our shoulders and send soldiers to Poland.
@WelshDalaiLama: Alex Salmond has announced he is also pregnant, but of course hasn't yet worked out all the details of how this is going to work in practice
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
Want to expand on that?
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?
It would be good to see proper research but other obvious possibilities are: 1) Less shitty economy, near-perfect Chancellor etc. 2) Lack of identity papers for people in the country legally, which makes things easier to be there illegally. 3) English language. 4) People want to go to places where they have friends or family which is true of any country, but you see people camping out at the UK border because there's a UK border. You don't see the people with friends and family in Germany camping out at the border because they've just gone to Germany.
They all look like sensible reasons to me. And even if there are a thousand people camped in Calais trying to get to the UK that's a tiny proportion of even just the number of people who have fled Syria in the last year.
More concerning Neil, why does nobody want to go to Ireland ?
Proportionately far more people emigrated to Ireland than to the UK over the last year for which statistics are available.
People returning from Cheltenham don't count.
The vast majority of immigrants to Ireland are foreigners and not returning nationals.
Neil, I do know this and the bulk of people leaving are natives. But it is odd that Ireland isn't being targeted as a refugee sanctuary, even if only as a conduit to the UK.
Far too much stuff about the Scots hating the English. That does not explain what is going on. Surely it is pretty simple. Scotland has a long history as an independent nation. It is part of a union in which there are two major political parties, Labour and Conservative. One of those parties is next to irrelevant in Scotland. The Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland at the last general election, yet they are governing over the Scots as the dominant party of government (most don't think the Lib Dems matter much). Of course they aren't going to be happy!
Precisely, Mr. Booth. The Union is broken as it no longer works at the political level. Why that has come about is neither here nor there but come about it has and the Union should be dissolved. If the Scots don't take this opportunity then we will have nothing but festering rancour for years to come until, eventually, they do vote yes (or, maybe, England gets a vote).
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
Want to expand on that?
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?
A life on benefits with housing and free education is heaven compared to the economic life where many of the African immigrants come from.
According to UNICEF Africa's population will jump from 1.1bn to 4.2bn at the end of this century. Almost all of them would move here if they could. Our country is being literally invaded and our response is to shrug our shoulders and send soldiers to Poland.
@Neil Anyone on benefits is entitled to a mansion (with free rent), a 48 inch colour TV, three mobile phones, and a holiday at an international resort once a year, I read that in the tabloids, so it must be true. (cosmetic surgery is available on request)
If you have less than 16k in savings, which is the case for 'asylum seekers' if not indigenous Brits, you get housing benefits, JSA, state funded education, state funded healthcare and all the other benefits labour introduced. So yes.
Mr. T, on a similar note, in reverse, the southwest has opened a first tungsten mine (I think it was this year).
Tungsten's becoming very popular for lots of things, include weapons and body armour.
Oi Mr Dancer, keep your greedy eyes off our tungsten. With it, your enormo-haddock would be surely invincible....and I for one am not ready to live under the Tyranny of the Wiffle Stick!
Far too much stuff about the Scots hating the English. That does not explain what is going on. Surely it is pretty simple. Scotland has a long history as an independent nation. It is part of a union in which there are two major political parties, Labour and Conservative. One of those parties is next to irrelevant in Scotland. The Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland at the last general election, yet they are governing over the Scots as the dominant party of government (most don't think the Lib Dems matter much). Of course they aren't going to be happy!
Precisely, Mr. Booth. The Union is broken as it no longer works at the political level. Why that has come about is neither here nor there but come about it has and the Union should be dissolved. If the Scots don't take this opportunity then we will have nothing but festering rancour for years to come until, eventually, they do vote yes (or, maybe, England gets a vote).
That is just silly Mr L. The issue is the overcentralisation of the UK and concentration of power in Westminster. The model has had its day and needs to be changed something I thought your purple friends actually advocated.
That the Scots have got the gumption to say basta and force the pace is to their credit. Roll on Federalism.
Maybe I'm being completely dim, but still cannot see what the downside to England of Scotland going actually is.
We stop subsidising Scotland by £20bn a year at least Any business of any scale will move its tax base to England We lose only 8% of the population Plymouth & Portsmouth get all the naval work No more Scottish Labour MP's voting on purely English matters
According to various reports this morning, if Scotland secedes the average life expectancy of the fUK goes up while the average rainfall goes down...
But it is odd that Ireland isn't being targeted as a refugee sanctuary, even if only as a conduit to the UK.
I wonder whether the much, much lower rate of granting asylum has anything to do with it. Or fewer ferry services from mainland Europe. But again, proportionately, I'm not even sure that Ireland receives fewer asylum seekers than the UK (couldnt find statistics from a quick look).
Far too much stuff about the Scots hating the English. That does not explain what is going on. Surely it is pretty simple. Scotland has a long history as an independent nation. It is part of a union in which there are two major political parties, Labour and Conservative. One of those parties is next to irrelevant in Scotland. The Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland at the last general election, yet they are governing over the Scots as the dominant party of government (most don't think the Lib Dems matter much). Of course they aren't going to be happy!
Precisely, Mr. Booth. The Union is broken as it no longer works at the political level. Why that has come about is neither here nor there but come about it has and the Union should be dissolved. If the Scots don't take this opportunity then we will have nothing but festering rancour for years to come until, eventually, they do vote yes (or, maybe, England gets a vote).
That is just silly Mr L. The issue is the overcentralisation of the UK and concentration of power in Westminster. The model has had its day and needs to be changed something I thought your purple friends actually advocated.
That the Scots have got the gumption to say basta and force the pace is to their credit. Roll on Federalism.
I was much in favour of a decentralised system of government, Mr. Brooke, in fact I still am. However, having listened to the arguments from the Scots on here over the months I no longer believe that Scotland can ever be a happy part of the UK. It really is best that they go.
But it is odd that Ireland isn't being targeted as a refugee sanctuary, even if only as a conduit to the UK.
I wonder whether the much, much lower rate of granting asylum has anything to do with it. Or fewer ferry services from mainland Europe. But again, proportionately, I'm not even sure that Ireland receives fewer asylum seekers than the UK (couldnt find statistics from a quick look).
(1) Non-contributory welfare system (2) Amnesty and citizenship if you've been here 20 years (3) Useless Home Office that isn't likely to catch you for 20 years.
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
Want to expand on that?
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?
A life on benefits with housing and free education is heaven compared to the economic life where many of the African immigrants come from.
According to UNICEF Africa's population will jump from 1.1bn to 4.2bn at the end of this century. Almost all of them would move here if they could. Our country is being literally invaded and our response is to shrug our shoulders and send soldiers to Poland.
Alternatively, a new Scottish currency could appreciate compared to Sterling, as it would at least have the support of North Sea oil income. You would expect that Sterling - North Sea oil would be a far weaker currency than at present. Then Scottish homeowners could be seeing their mortgage payments cut drastically in an instant.
How much worse does the English trade deficit get if you take out North Sea Oil?
With 800k barrels per day at 100$ per barrel, that is 29$ billion per year, so lets say 18 billion pounds. If Britain loses the north sea oil, then it will have to import the whole amount. Exports in the past 12 months are 495 billion pounds, imports at 526 billion pounds. That might warrant a devaluation of the pound of about 4%, on top of what is already needed to balance the trade figures.
@FalseFlag State education and healthcare is of course a benefit to the individual, but it is also a benefit to employers, who seem very keen that they should not have to pay taxes to fund it. Truly the "something for nothing" society?
@FalseFlag State education and healthcare is of course a benefit to the individual, but it is also a benefit to employers, who seem very keen that they should not have to pay taxes to fund it. Truly the "something for nothing" society?
Actually I would expect universal healthcare to be ended in the future, education will also revert to a more basic provision, university tuition fees is the first sensible step in this direction.
For all those thinking that scottish independence will revive scottish industry I have to say that north sea oil post independence will decimate what's left of it due to the dutch disease. It will make scottish goods too expensive to buy and it will make english goods cheaper.
Far too much stuff about the Scots hating the English. That does not explain what is going on. Surely it is pretty simple. Scotland has a long history as an independent nation. It is part of a union in which there are two major political parties, Labour and Conservative. One of those parties is next to irrelevant in Scotland. The Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland at the last general election, yet they are governing over the Scots as the dominant party of government (most don't think the Lib Dems matter much). Of course they aren't going to be happy!
Precisely, Mr. Booth. The Union is broken as it no longer works at the political level. Why that has come about is neither here nor there but come about it has and the Union should be dissolved. If the Scots don't take this opportunity then we will have nothing but festering rancour for years to come until, eventually, they do vote yes (or, maybe, England gets a vote).
That is just silly Mr L. The issue is the overcentralisation of the UK and concentration of power in Westminster. The model has had its day and needs to be changed something I thought your purple friends actually advocated.
That the Scots have got the gumption to say basta and force the pace is to their credit. Roll on Federalism.
I was much in favour of a decentralised system of government, Mr. Brooke, in fact I still am. However, having listened to the arguments from the Scots on here over the months I no longer believe that Scotland can ever be a happy part of the UK. It really is best that they go.
well on that basis you should also lop off the North of England and a chunk of the Midlands while you're at it since they don't like Southerners either.
I would hardly say the 24 hour sledging on PB is typical of Scots. More likely they worry about paying the mortgage, paying the bills, he nips off for a pint while she watches Coronation Street.
The Labour tactic of fomenting discontent and setting groups against each other is why we are here. In this instance they have put so many dividing lines in they're in danger of slicing themselves out of the pie altogether.
Instead of trying to make the cake bigger they're in danger of shrinking it by 8% overnight. Idiots at work.
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.
Don't be silly.
The people of Wokingham haven't decided to secede from the Greatest Political Union in the history of mankind.
But they have decided to send John Redwood to Parliament. Repeatedly. It's the only way they're likely to learn.
Why should we expect Johnny Foreigner MPs in our parliament, who will bugger off within a year.
It makes no sense.
If Scotland secedes, the people of rUK would expect their government to negotiate the best settlement they can with the Scottish government in Edinburgh. A government that's dependent on Scottish votes to survive can't do that.
But, the Scots would likely solve this problem by electing the SNP in overwhelming numbers.
Far too much stuff about the Scots hating the English. That does not explain what is going on. Surely it is pretty simple. Scotland has a long history as an independent nation. It is part of a union in which there are two major political parties, Labour and Conservative. One of those parties is next to irrelevant in Scotland. The Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland at the last general election, yet they are governing over the Scots as the dominant party of government (most don't think the Lib Dems matter much). Of course they aren't going to be happy!
True - but its hard to forget that the SNP has historical form in this area. One its founders listed "Anglophobia" as a hobby in Who's Who (1) and as recently as 2003 the Scottish Social Attitudes survey found that "Conservative voters scored low on Anglophobia but high on every other phobia; SNP voters scored high on Anglophobia but not on other phobias" (2) (the exact inverse of Scottish Tories!). So a lingering suspicion, no doubt misplaced today, is understandable
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.
Don't be silly.
The people of Wokingham haven't decided to secede from the Greatest Political Union in the history of mankind.
But they have decided to send John Redwood to Parliament. Repeatedly. It's the only way they're likely to learn.
Why should we expect Johnny Foreigner MPs in our parliament, who will bugger off within a year.
It makes no sense.
Dear, dear. Why should people like my brother continue paying tax to Westminster if they have no political representation there? Would you prefer a situation in which all Scottish tax revenue went immediately to the Scottish government? Given the potential chaos for both sides, I think it would be better if we took our time.
I know the ceasefire is more of a theoretical concept than real, but I wonder if the sanctions might be used as an excuse by Putin for a full-blown resumption of hostilities (having used the delay to fortify defensive positions and bring in more men and machines).
Is that the best you can come up with or just agreeing that they are not genuine refugees?
No, I am not agreeing that none of the people currently in Calais trying to get to the UK are genuine refugees. By pointing out that some of them had fled Syria in recent times I thought that even you would realise that some of them were obviously refugees from a war-torn country.
@FalseFlag Pre Victorian values? The dream of the far right, a peasant class that can service their every whim, at a price they can set. There was a reason that that idea collapsed into the dust of history, and trying to resurrect it under modern conditions is not going to happen without a "police state".
For all those thinking that scottish independence will revive scottish industry I have to say that north sea oil post independence will decimate what's left of it due to the dutch disease. It will make scottish goods too expensive to buy and it will make english goods cheaper.
The irony of sanctions against Russia is they will lead that country to cure its Dutch disease by fixing its broken industry. What could possibly go wrong?
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.
Don't be silly.
The people of Wokingham haven't decided to secede from the Greatest Political Union in the history of mankind.
But they have decided to send John Redwood to Parliament. Repeatedly. It's the only way they're likely to learn.
Why should we expect Johnny Foreigner MPs in our parliament, who will bugger off within a year.
It makes no sense.
Dear, dear. Why should people like my brother continue paying tax to Westminster if they have no political representation there? Would you prefer a situation in which all Scottish tax revenue went immediately to the Scottish government? Given the potential chaos for both sides, I think it would be better if we took our time.
They've voted to secede. They have to deal with the consequences.
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.
Don't be silly.
The people of Wokingham haven't decided to secede from the Greatest Political Union in the history of mankind.
But they have decided to send John Redwood to Parliament. Repeatedly. It's the only way they're likely to learn.
Why should we expect Johnny Foreigner MPs in our parliament, who will bugger off within a year.
It makes no sense.
Dear, dear. Why should people like my brother continue paying tax to Westminster if they have no political representation there? Would you prefer a situation in which all Scottish tax revenue went immediately to the Scottish government? Given the potential chaos for both sides, I think it would be better if we took our time.
They've voted to secede. They have to deal with the consequences.
The consequences dont include the suspension of democracy in the UK.
It seems quite likely to me that if Miliband is PM by next summer, the negotiations over independence post a Yes will give Scottish Labour a dowry for the beginning of post-independence Scottish politics.
My guess is he'll give them the currency union they want, so in Scottish Labour can have a good story to tell in the 2016 Scottish election. I wouldn't be surprised if they also agree to keep the Scottish MPs in the Commons for as long as possible. With the Lib Dems' help, he can push some electoral / boundary reforms through to persist Labour's ability to form a majority government while coming second in the vote.
Essentially any negotiations between Miliband and Salmond would be an auction for post-Yes votes with England funding the bids.
It is quite extraordinary that UKIPpers have persuaded themselves that Miliband will only be in for one term and can't do too much harm. This is so far fetched that one has to choose the alternative explanation: they know they can't win an In / Out referendum anyway, so they need Miliband to win in 2015 so UKIP won't have to disband in 2017.
Alternatively, a new Scottish currency could appreciate compared to Sterling, as it would at least have the support of North Sea oil income. You would expect that Sterling - North Sea oil would be a far weaker currency than at present. Then Scottish homeowners could be seeing their mortgage payments cut drastically in an instant.
How much worse does the English trade deficit get if you take out North Sea Oil?
With 800k barrels per day at 100$ per barrel, that is 29$ billion per year, so lets say 18 billion pounds. If Britain loses the north sea oil, then it will have to import the whole amount. Exports in the past 12 months are 495 billion pounds, imports at 526 billion pounds. That might warrant a devaluation of the pound of about 4%, on top of what is already needed to balance the trade figures.
otoh
a lack of a currency union will have a major impact on Scotlands Financial Services. If half of it goes South then it's 5% of Scotland's 8% of UK GDP or 0.4% of £ 1.5 trillion. So £6 billion heads south leaving a £12bn gap.
Maybe I'm being completely dim, but still cannot see what the downside to England of Scotland going actually is.
We stop subsidising Scotland by £20bn a year at least Any business of any scale will move its tax base to England We lose only 8% of the population Plymouth & Portsmouth get all the naval work No more Scottish Labour MP's voting on purely English matters
According to various reports this morning, if Scotland secedes the average life expectancy of the fUK goes up while the average rainfall goes down...
it's not going to be the UK however - how can it be a United Kingdom when the Union has been broken.
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.
Don't be silly.
The people of Wokingham haven't decided to secede from the Greatest Political Union in the history of mankind.
But they have decided to send John Redwood to Parliament. Repeatedly. It's the only way they're likely to learn.
Why should we expect Johnny Foreigner MPs in our parliament, who will bugger off within a year.
It makes no sense.
Dear, dear. Why should people like my brother continue paying tax to Westminster if they have no political representation there? Would you prefer a situation in which all Scottish tax revenue went immediately to the Scottish government? Given the potential chaos for both sides, I think it would be better if we took our time.
They've voted to secede. They have to deal with the consequences.
Why would we be entitled to their tax revenues? Are you suggesting that rUK could just do whatever it wanted in such a scenario because Scotland has 'to deal with the consequences?' A Crimea style coup around Faslane?
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.
Don't be silly.
The people of Wokingham haven't decided to secede from the Greatest Political Union in the history of mankind.
But they have decided to send John Redwood to Parliament. Repeatedly. It's the only way they're likely to learn.
Why should we expect Johnny Foreigner MPs in our parliament, who will bugger off within a year.
It makes no sense.
Dear, dear. Why should people like my brother continue paying tax to Westminster if they have no political representation there? Would you prefer a situation in which all Scottish tax revenue went immediately to the Scottish government? Given the potential chaos for both sides, I think it would be better if we took our time.
They've voted to secede. They have to deal with the consequences.
The consequences dont include the suspension of democracy in the UK.
These are unprecedented times.
The Scots are like a husband who has told his wife he wants a divorce but still expects her to give him steak and blowjobs everyday until the decree absolute is granted.
@FalseFlag Pre Victorian values? The dream of the far right, a peasant class that can service their every whim, at a price they can set. There was a reason that that idea collapsed into the dust of history, and trying to resurrect it under modern conditions is not going to happen without a "police state".
But it is happening now. The concentration of more and more wealth into fewer and fewer hands and the decline of the middle classes is a current phenomena yet we don't have a police state, though admittedly we have a much more authoritarian one.
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.
Don't be silly.
The people of Wokingham haven't decided to secede from the Greatest Political Union in the history of mankind.
But they have decided to send John Redwood to Parliament. Repeatedly. It's the only way they're likely to learn.
Why should we expect Johnny Foreigner MPs in our parliament, who will bugger off within a year.
It makes no sense.
If Scotland secedes, the people of rUK would expect their government to negotiate the best settlement they can with the Scottish government in Edinburgh. A government that's dependent on Scottish votes to survive can't do that.
But, the Scots would likely solve this problem by electing the SNP in overwhelming numbers.
I'm not sure that follows. Post-2015, Labour can use Scottish votes to force through electoral reforms to keep itself in power in perpetuity, with the quid pro quo being they agree to Salmond's currency union. By not having an In / Out referendum he keeps UKIP alive, which will be worth another 15 or 20 seats to him as well.
It seems quite likely to me that if Miliband is PM by next summer, the negotiations over independence post a Yes will give Scottish Labour a dowry for the beginning of post-independence Scottish politics.
My guess is he'll give them the currency union they want, so in Scottish Labour can have a good story to tell in the 2016 Scottish election. I wouldn't be surprised if they also agree to keep the Scottish MPs in the Commons for as long as possible. With the Lib Dems' help, he can push some electoral / boundary reforms through to persist Labour's ability to form a majority government while coming second in the vote.
Essentially any negotiations between Miliband and Salmond would be an auction for post-Yes votes with England funding the bids.
It is quite extraordinary that UKIPpers have persuaded themselves that Miliband will only be in for one term and can't do too much harm. This is so far fetched that one has to choose the alternative explanation: they know they can't win an In / Out referendum anyway, so they need Miliband to win in 2015 so UKIP won't have to disband in 2017.
Is there no topic that you cant turn into a UKIP rant?
Would it help you if we all acknowledged that you dont like UKIP to save you having to make these posts?
Far too much stuff about the Scots hating the English. That does not explain what is going on. Surely it is pretty simple. Scotland has a long history as an independent nation. It is part of a union in which there are two major political parties, Labour and Conservative. One of those parties is next to irrelevant in Scotland. The Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland at the last general election, yet they are governing over the Scots as the dominant party of government (most don't think the Lib Dems matter much). Of course they aren't going to be happy!
In some Birmingham seats the Tories got less than that, should we have an independent Birmingham too everytime the Tories are in power?
Or in the shires, Labour has even less than that, should we have an independent english countryside everytime Labour is in power?
The argument that scotland will have to be independent everytime the Tories are in government reeks, the south doesn't ask for independence everytime we have a Labour government and a scottish PM that is.
@Alanbrooke And if Scotland offers better tax incentives than England? The answer is that it becomes a bidding war in which only the better off win, but someone will try it, they always do.
The latest Populus is a mildly encouraging one for the Tories (especially for a Monday), but yet again they appear incapable of breaking through that 34%/35% ceiling. Does anyone know when, according to the Fisher model, they are supposed to catch and indeed overtake Labour, or does that only happen on polling day next May?
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
It's worth considering but only on the condition that the people of Wokingham are not allowed to participate either.
Don't be silly.
The people of Wokingham haven't decided to secede from the Greatest Political Union in the history of mankind.
But they have decided to send John Redwood to Parliament. Repeatedly. It's the only way they're likely to learn.
Why should we expect Johnny Foreigner MPs in our parliament, who will bugger off within a year.
It makes no sense.
If Scotland secedes, the people of rUK would expect their government to negotiate the best settlement they can with the Scottish government in Edinburgh. A government that's dependent on Scottish votes to survive can't do that.
But, the Scots would likely solve this problem by electing the SNP in overwhelming numbers.
I'm not sure that follows. Post-2015, Labour can use Scottish votes to force through electoral reforms to keep itself in power in perpetuity, with the quid pro quo being they agree to Salmond's currency union. By not having an In / Out referendum he keeps UKIP alive, which will be worth another 15 or 20 seats to him as well.
Electoral reform would see Labour thrown out of power. They need First Past the Post to say in place.
The latest Populus is a mildly encouraging one for the Tories (especially for a Monday), but yet again they appear incapable of breaking through that 34%/35% ceiling. Does anyone know when, according to the Fisher model, they are supposed to catch and indeed overtake Labour, or does that only happen on polling day next May?
You appear (perhaps deliberately) to miss the point about public perceptions running up to a referendum that is, in part, about comparing respective forms of governance. You're usually a bit sharper than that.
No, quite the opposite. I agree that it is quite possible that the decision might be swayed by spectacularly trivial considerations such as the recommended* MP pay increase. That is what is so funny.
@Alanbrooke And if Scotland offers better tax incentives than England? The answer is that it becomes a bidding war in which only the better off win, but someone will try it, they always do.
It's a trade off. Lower tax for a duff currency ? Companies will go with the safety of currency.
However Ireland already has a much lower rate of taxation than the UK and is under pressure to increase it so I can't see an iScotland being allowed to repeat the trick if it wants into the EU quickly.
@FalseFlag Pre Victorian values? The dream of the far right, a peasant class that can service their every whim, at a price they can set. There was a reason that that idea collapsed into the dust of history, and trying to resurrect it under modern conditions is not going to happen without a "police state".
But it is happening now. The concentration of more and more wealth into fewer and fewer hands and the decline of the middle classes is a current phenomena yet we don't have a police state, though admittedly we have a much more authoritarian one.
What is a police state? Our movements are tracked and recorded, along with our shopping, bank accounts and almost every other aspect of our lives, including our mitherings on pb. Surely Erich Honecker's wet dream, were he not dead.
@Alanbrooke And if Scotland offers better tax incentives than England? The answer is that it becomes a bidding war in which only the better off win, but someone will try it, they always do.
In that case england would be forced to close those tax loopholes, that allow businesses to sell their products and services in england while paying no tax in england.
Maybe I'm being completely dim, but still cannot see what the downside to England of Scotland going actually is.
We stop subsidising Scotland by £20bn a year at least Any business of any scale will move its tax base to England We lose only 8% of the population Plymouth & Portsmouth get all the naval work No more Scottish Labour MP's voting on purely English matters
According to various reports this morning, if Scotland secedes the average life expectancy of the fUK goes up while the average rainfall goes down...
Maybe I'm being completely dim, but still cannot see what the downside to England of Scotland going actually is.
We stop subsidising Scotland by £20bn a year at least Any business of any scale will move its tax base to England We lose only 8% of the population Plymouth & Portsmouth get all the naval work No more Scottish Labour MP's voting on purely English matters
The problem is that with Labour in power, none of the subsidies will stop. You will have Labour on one side of the table wanting to negotiate a nice little package for SLAB to take into the first Scottish GE, and you will have Wee Eck on the other side wanting the same thing, with the costs to be borne by the English taxpayer.
My guess would be that as well as getting the currency union they will also get Barnett formula handouts indefinitely. Labour is never penalised for this kind of thing by its supporters and for the 2020 GE they'll just bang on about the Tories wanting to privatise the NHS to make sure they win.
It seems quite likely to me that if Miliband is PM by next summer, the negotiations over independence post a Yes will give Scottish Labour a dowry for the beginning of post-independence Scottish politics.
My guess is he'll give them the currency union they want, so in Scottish Labour can have a good story to tell in the 2016 Scottish election. I wouldn't be surprised if they also agree to keep the Scottish MPs in the Commons for as long as possible. With the Lib Dems' help, he can push some electoral / boundary reforms through to persist Labour's ability to form a majority government while coming second in the vote.
Essentially any negotiations between Miliband and Salmond would be an auction for post-Yes votes with England funding the bids.
It is quite extraordinary that UKIPpers have persuaded themselves that Miliband will only be in for one term and can't do too much harm. This is so far fetched that one has to choose the alternative explanation: they know they can't win an In / Out referendum anyway, so they need Miliband to win in 2015 so UKIP won't have to disband in 2017.
Is there no topic that you cant turn into a UKIP rant?
Would it help you if we all acknowledged that you dont like UKIP to save you having to make these posts?
Comments
I'd love a more detailed view of the betting patterens ecause it certainly seems like the liquidity in the market comes in big, easy to spot chunks. Some of the big price falls and rises have occurred on very small amounts of cash.
1) Less shitty economy, near-perfect Chancellor etc.
2) Lack of identity papers for people in the country legally, which makes things easier to be there illegally.
3) English language.
4) People want to go to places where they have friends or family which is true of any country, but you see people camping out at the UK border because there's a UK border. You don't see the people with friends and family in Germany camping out at the German border because they've just gone to Germany.
We stop subsidising Scotland by £20bn a year at least
Any business of any scale will move its tax base to England
We lose only 8% of the population
Plymouth & Portsmouth get all the naval work
No more Scottish Labour MP's voting on purely English matters
One would've thought if it goes ahead this year it'll likely stay. A one year suspension isn't impossible, though (cf Bahrain).
http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/irish-emigration-one-person-left-4111624
Logically we should persuading Wales to follow ,,,
And the North of England?
Independence for the SE?
Tungsten's becoming very popular for lots of things, include weapons and body armour.
Rotherham Council Chief Executive steps down.
http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/news/article/243/statement_from_martin_kimber
http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21615644-binyamin-netanyahu-orders-biggest-land-grab-generation-another-thousand?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/anotherthousandacres
I think Ed Miliband is deliberately trying to wreck the No campaign. He wants to force me streak naked as an act of petty revenge...
Africa's average IQ level is 70, the UK's 100.
'You doubt that people fleeing, say, Syria are genuine refugees?'
So if they are genuine refugees why haven't they claimed asylum in France?
" I'm off, I'm taking up with Alex he knows how to treat a woman, he's got a taxi-driving business in Rotherham"
You can only but laugh!
If ever you doubted the sheer oddity of some cybernats, they're currently berating @OwenJones84 (and Ed Miliband) for being right wing.
That the Scots have got the gumption to say basta and force the pace is to their credit. Roll on Federalism.
Andrew Neil @afneil 13s
John Redmond to proposes that if Scotland votes YES on Sept 18th, Scotland should not participate in May 2015 general election.
The people of Wokingham haven't decided to secede from the Greatest Political Union in the history of mankind.
Other reasons asylum seekers want to come here:
(1) Non-contributory welfare system
(2) Amnesty and citizenship if you've been here 20 years
(3) Useless Home Office that isn't likely to catch you for 20 years.
Exports in the past 12 months are 495 billion pounds, imports at 526 billion pounds.
That might warrant a devaluation of the pound of about 4%, on top of what is already needed to balance the trade figures.
State education and healthcare is of course a benefit to the individual, but it is also a benefit to employers, who seem very keen that they should not have to pay taxes to fund it.
Truly the "something for nothing" society?
It makes no sense.
'Have you ever been to France?'
Is that the best you can come up with or just agreeing that they are not genuine refugees?
It will make scottish goods too expensive to buy and it will make english goods cheaper.
I would hardly say the 24 hour sledging on PB is typical of Scots. More likely they worry about paying the mortgage, paying the bills, he nips off for a pint while she watches Coronation Street.
The Labour tactic of fomenting discontent and setting groups against each other is why we are here. In this instance they have put so many dividing lines in they're in danger of slicing themselves out of the pie altogether.
Instead of trying to make the cake bigger they're in danger of shrinking it by 8% overnight. Idiots at work.
But, the Scots would likely solve this problem by electing the SNP in overwhelming numbers.
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_MacDiarmid
(2) http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/0199280711.003.0004
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29107832
I know the ceasefire is more of a theoretical concept than real, but I wonder if the sanctions might be used as an excuse by Putin for a full-blown resumption of hostilities (having used the delay to fortify defensive positions and bring in more men and machines).
Pre Victorian values?
The dream of the far right, a peasant class that can service their every whim, at a price they can set.
There was a reason that that idea collapsed into the dust of history, and trying to resurrect it under modern conditions is not going to happen without a "police state".
My guess is he'll give them the currency union they want, so in Scottish Labour can have a good story to tell in the 2016 Scottish election. I wouldn't be surprised if they also agree to keep the Scottish MPs in the Commons for as long as possible. With the Lib Dems' help, he can push some electoral / boundary reforms through to persist Labour's ability to form a majority government while coming second in the vote.
Essentially any negotiations between Miliband and Salmond would be an auction for post-Yes votes with England funding the bids.
It is quite extraordinary that UKIPpers have persuaded themselves that Miliband will only be in for one term and can't do too much harm. This is so far fetched that one has to choose the alternative explanation: they know they can't win an In / Out referendum anyway, so they need Miliband to win in 2015 so UKIP won't have to disband in 2017.
a lack of a currency union will have a major impact on Scotlands Financial Services. If half of it goes South then it's 5% of Scotland's 8% of UK GDP or 0.4% of £ 1.5 trillion. So £6 billion heads south leaving a £12bn gap.
The Scots are like a husband who has told his wife he wants a divorce but still expects her to give him steak and blowjobs everyday until the decree absolute is granted.
Would it help you if we all acknowledged that you dont like UKIP to save you having to make these posts?
Or in the shires, Labour has even less than that, should we have an independent english countryside everytime Labour is in power?
The argument that scotland will have to be independent everytime the Tories are in government reeks, the south doesn't ask for independence everytime we have a Labour government and a scottish PM that is.
And if Scotland offers better tax incentives than England?
The answer is that it becomes a bidding war in which only the better off win, but someone will try it, they always do.
Does anyone know when, according to the Fisher model, they are supposed to catch and indeed overtake Labour, or does that only happen on polling day next May?
* Recommended by a body created by a Scot, BTW!
However Ireland already has a much lower rate of taxation than the UK and is under pressure to increase it so I can't see an iScotland being allowed to repeat the trick if it wants into the EU quickly.
My guess would be that as well as getting the currency union they will also get Barnett formula handouts indefinitely. Labour is never penalised for this kind of thing by its supporters and for the 2020 GE they'll just bang on about the Tories wanting to privatise the NHS to make sure they win.
Last time I looked it was still Mike S's site.