politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How the economic case for Scottish Independence was weakene

SystemSystem Posts: 12,126
edited June 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How the economic case for Scottish Independence was weakened in the last week

The top table (table 5) is taken from the Scottish Government’s white paper on independence published in late 2013, whilst the bottom table (table 1) is from the Scottish Government’s Oil & Gas bulletin published last week. As the Guardian notes

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,141
    But, one poster repeatedly assures us that the economy of rUK would go into meltdown without Scotland.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Oh lovely! A whole thread on Natonomics!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    I’ve always proceeded on the premise that the Scots will never vote for independence if it leads to them becoming poorer nor will they vote for independence if it leads to economic uncertainty.


    No, the Scots won't - but the Nats would.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited June 2015
    FPT:
    Life_ina_market_town said:

    Indigo said:

    Does this mean in effect that parliament is not sovereign and cannot use primary legislation to prevent judicial activism ? Or is it merely the provision in the act you cite were poorly or inadequately drafted ?

    The courts always construe clauses ousting their ordinary jurisdiction very strictly, applying a presumption that Parliament must demonstrate by express words a clear intention to remove the subject's right of access to the court's supervisory jurisdiction (Regina v Medical Appeal Tribunal, Ex parte Gilmore [1957] 1 QB 574 (CA); Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 (HL)). In no previous case, however, has an ouster clause been as clear as section 4(7) of the 1986 Act, which provides:
    The validity of any Order in Council purporting to be made under this Act and reciting that a draft of the Order has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament shall not be called in question in any legal proceedings whatsoever.
    Then again, section 50(7) of the St Kitts and Nevis Constitution provides:
    The question of the validity of any proclamation by the Governor-General purporting to be made under subsection (6) and reciting that a draft thereof has been approved by resolution of the National Assembly shall not be inquired into in any court of law...
    Very interesting. So where does that leave us if parliament has stated in what appears to be clear and unambiguous language that it expressly doesn't want that courts to reviews specific orders made in council, but the courts decided to reviews them and declare them invalid anyway.

    Can the Supreme Court be held to be acting ultra vires and if so by whom ? Can parliament declare itself supreme and ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court and go ahead anyway. Sounds like a constitutional crisis to me.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Sean_F said:

    But, one poster repeatedly assures us that the economy of rUK would go into meltdown without Scotland.

    It's astonishing the influence 8% of the economy has on the other 92%. Quite incredible.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,593
    edited June 2015
    The economic and fiscal case for Scottish independence is stone dead. It's not just the oil price, it's the huge deficit and it's the currency. The SNP has no credible answers. But it will lie and it will dissemble, for there is no misery the SNP would not inflict on Scotland's population in order to get the international frontier that is its only motivation. And the SNP could get what it wants. That's because the emotional case for independence is still alive and kicking. The Westminster parties, and Labour in particular, have failed utterly to counter it. Logically, you'd expect the SNP to run a mile from a new referendum. But it is setting the agenda so completely in Scotland that in reality the chances are it will call one and win. Legally, though, this will only be binding if Westminster agrees to it. That could be Scotland's salvation.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,980
    The nats are going to love this thread. Well done for stirring the hornets nest, TSE!
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    CarlottaVance said:

    Sean_F said:

    But, one poster repeatedly assures us that the economy of rUK would go into meltdown without Scotland.

    It's astonishing the influence 8% of the economy has on the other 92%. Quite incredible.
    Especially if you consider that benefit claims north of the border are higher per head of population than south of it as well.
  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    Casino_Royale said:

    The nats are going to love this thread. Well done for stirring the hornets nest, TSE!

    Its probably a bid by TSE to get them all banned once and for all
  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    FPT - and my apologies if this comment has been made before - the graphic shows the depth of Labour's problem. Half the voters it lost thought it was too right-wing. The other half thought it was too left-wing.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    dugarbandier said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    The nats are going to love this thread. Well done for stirring the hornets nest, TSE!

    Its probably a bid by TSE to get them all banned once and for all
    Some of them add to the sum total of human knowledge - Calum being a good example.

    Others vigourously and repeatedly subtract from it.....
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited June 2015
    Casino_Royale said:

    The nats are going to love this thread. Well done for stirring the hornets nest, TSE!

    I am waiting for the usual suspects to tell us that we can't survive because we are a "Zero Resource Economy", rather like.... Switzerland, a well known financial basket case I am sure we all agree,.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Casino_Royale said:

    The nats are going to love this thread. Well done for stirring the hornets nest, TSE!

    Maybe, like Swinney they thought no one would notice the oil numbers.....there have been calls since February that they be published....
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,678
    On topic, support for independence has always tracked projected oil revenues. It may be that that relationship may be weaker in the fallout from the referendum but I doubt it has broken entirely. Calling another referendum next year would smack of hubris. The SNP should get on with the business of governing Scotland and finishing off Labour as a credible party of opposition. Playing political games they can't win would undermine both objectives.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,980
    CarlottaVance said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    The nats are going to love this thread. Well done for stirring the hornets nest, TSE!

    Maybe, like Swinney they thought no one would notice the oil numbers.....there have been calls since February that they be published....
    Normally, they deny the facts, and then shoot the messenger. Then throw in a bit of whataboutism.

    It will be interesting to see how this is countered. But I'm not expecting Kavanagh QC.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,678
    Innocent_Abroad said:

    FPT - and my apologies if this comment has been made before - the graphic shows the depth of Labour's problem. Half the voters it lost thought it was too right-wing. The other half thought it was too left-wing.

    Not sure you can infer that from the graphic. Sure, they lost as many to left-of-centre parties as to right-of-centre ones but the numbers are so small that I'd have thought that many, and probably most, of these were simply floating voters doing what floating voters do: looking for either the best vehicle to protest or the most reliable party to look after them and their country.

    Put simply, enough of Brown's electoral coalition decided that Ed was Crap that he should never be prime minister. They either weren't bothered at the prospect of a Cameron government or actively thought it the best option seriously available.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited June 2015
    Sigh...
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3143297/Cameron-tells-BBC-stop-using-Islamic-State-barbarous-terror-group-threatening-British-way-life.html
    David Cameron today called on the BBC not to use the phrase 'Islamic State' when referring to the terror group operating in Iraq and Syria.

    The Prime Minister - who calls the group 'ISIL' - said Muslims would 'recoil' at the phrase being used to justify the 'perversion of a great religion'.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    This article on Labour internal politics is potentially rather important:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/ed-miliband-changed-labour-party-way-we-dont-yet-fully-appreciate
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    This interesting thread head should increase the post count....
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,980
    david_herdson said:

    Innocent_Abroad said:

    FPT - and my apologies if this comment has been made before - the graphic shows the depth of Labour's problem. Half the voters it lost thought it was too right-wing. The other half thought it was too left-wing.

    Not sure you can infer that from the graphic. Sure, they lost as many to left-of-centre parties as to right-of-centre ones but the numbers are so small that I'd have thought that many, and probably most, of these were simply floating voters doing what floating voters do: looking for either the best vehicle to protest or the most reliable party to look after them and their country.

    Put simply, enough of Brown's electoral coalition decided that Ed was Crap that he should never be prime minister. They either weren't bothered at the prospect of a Cameron government or actively thought it the best option seriously available.
    The more I think about it, the more some of the post-election voting data makes sense: my facebook friends- virtually all graduates, London-based, Guardian reading - would express various degrees of despair at another Tory government. Such critiques would be liked and re-shared by each others. So whenever I logged on it looked 'game over'. The minority that disagreed didn't post politics on facebook, or much else, and if they did such posts would be ignored - one to two comments or likes at most.

    By contrast, at work, the vast majority of my colleagues are project managers, contract managers and engineers working in the infrastructure sector. They live in the suburbs or home counties and are homeowners. More likely to be on linkedIN than Facebook; the average age is well over 50. Almost to a man, and they were almost all men, they were absolutely horrified at the prospect of an Ed Miliband government.

    The difference is: the latter group voted.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    antifrank said:

    This article on Labour internal politics is potentially rather important:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/ed-miliband-changed-labour-party-way-we-dont-yet-fully-appreciate

    The way I think about it is that the stronger the left is, the more unelectable Labour becomes.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Morning Fellow Turnips :smiley:
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,980
    edited June 2015
    Indigo said:

    Sigh...
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3143297/Cameron-tells-BBC-stop-using-Islamic-State-barbarous-terror-group-threatening-British-way-life.html

    David Cameron today called on the BBC not to use the phrase 'Islamic State' when referring to the terror group operating in Iraq and Syria.

    The Prime Minister - who calls the group 'ISIL' - said Muslims would 'recoil' at the phrase being used to justify the 'perversion of a great religion'.
    As far as I can tell, IS, ISIS and ISIL seem to be used more or less interchangeably by commentators and the media.

    Edit: looking at those comments, and usual caveats apply, DM readers don't seem too impressed by Mr. Cameron on this
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,593
    david_herdson said:

    Innocent_Abroad said:

    FPT - and my apologies if this comment has been made before - the graphic shows the depth of Labour's problem. Half the voters it lost thought it was too right-wing. The other half thought it was too left-wing.

    Not sure you can infer that from the graphic. Sure, they lost as many to left-of-centre parties as to right-of-centre ones but the numbers are so small that I'd have thought that many, and probably most, of these were simply floating voters doing what floating voters do: looking for either the best vehicle to protest or the most reliable party to look after them and their country.

    Put simply, enough of Brown's electoral coalition decided that Ed was Crap that he should never be prime minister. They either weren't bothered at the prospect of a Cameron government or actively thought it the best option seriously available.

    Agreed. Labour never looked credible in terms of policy or leadership. Floating voters responded to that in different ways.

  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    Casino_Royale said:

    david_herdson said:

    Innocent_Abroad said:

    FPT - and my apologies if this comment has been made before - the graphic shows the depth of Labour's problem. Half the voters it lost thought it was too right-wing. The other half thought it was too left-wing.

    Not sure you can infer that from the graphic. Sure, they lost as many to left-of-centre parties as to right-of-centre ones but the numbers are so small that I'd have thought that many, and probably most, of these were simply floating voters doing what floating voters do: looking for either the best vehicle to protest or the most reliable party to look after them and their country.

    Put simply, enough of Brown's electoral coalition decided that Ed was Crap that he should never be prime minister. They either weren't bothered at the prospect of a Cameron government or actively thought it the best option seriously available.
    The more I think about it, the more some of the post-election voting data makes sense: my facebook friends- virtually all graduates, London-based, Guardian reading - would express various degrees of despair at another Tory government. Such critiques would be liked and re-shared by each others. So whenever I logged on it looked 'game over'. The minority that disagreed didn't post politics on facebook, or much else, and if they did such posts would be ignored - one to two comments or likes at most.

    By contrast, at work, the vast majority of my colleagues are project managers, contract managers and engineers working in the infrastructure sector. They live in the suburbs or home counties and are homeowners. More likely to be on linkedIN than Facebook; the average age is well over 50. Almost to a man, and they were almost all men, they were absolutely horrified at the prospect of an Ed Miliband government.

    The difference is: the latter group voted.
    Which is the weakness of Baxter's - admittedly visually stunning - graphic. It conflates voters and electorate. (Although, given the swings in London, probably a fair few of your facebookies voted too.)

  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Casino_Royale said:

    Indigo said:

    Sigh...
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3143297/Cameron-tells-BBC-stop-using-Islamic-State-barbarous-terror-group-threatening-British-way-life.html

    David Cameron today called on the BBC not to use the phrase 'Islamic State' when referring to the terror group operating in Iraq and Syria.

    The Prime Minister - who calls the group 'ISIL' - said Muslims would 'recoil' at the phrase being used to justify the 'perversion of a great religion'.
    As far as I can tell, IS, ISIS and ISIL seem to be used more or less interchangeably by commentators and the media.


    Not sure what he thinks the first two letters of ISIL actually stand for... "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", so he is calling it the Islamic State as well. It is so typical of the sort of PR bullshit he seems to enjoy :(
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,980
    Innocent_Abroad said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    david_herdson said:

    Innocent_Abroad said:

    FPT - and my apologies if this comment has been made before - the graphic shows the depth of Labour's problem. Half the voters it lost thought it was too right-wing. The other half thought it was too left-wing.

    Not sure you can infer that from the graphic. Sure, they lost as many to left-of-centre parties as to right-of-centre ones but the numbers are so small that I'd have thought that many, and probably most, of these were simply floating voters doing what floating voters do: looking for either the best vehicle to protest or the most reliable party to look after them and their country.

    Put simply, enough of Brown's electoral coalition decided that Ed was Crap that he should never be prime minister. They either weren't bothered at the prospect of a Cameron government or actively thought it the best option seriously available.
    The more I think about it, the more some of the post-election voting data makes sense: my facebook friends- virtually all graduates, London-based, Guardian reading - would express various degrees of despair at another Tory government. Such critiques would be liked and re-shared by each others. So whenever I logged on it looked 'game over'. The minority that disagreed didn't post politics on facebook, or much else, and if they did such posts would be ignored - one to two comments or likes at most.

    By contrast, at work, the vast majority of my colleagues are project managers, contract managers and engineers working in the infrastructure sector. They live in the suburbs or home counties and are homeowners. More likely to be on linkedIN than Facebook; the average age is well over 50. Almost to a man, and they were almost all men, they were absolutely horrified at the prospect of an Ed Miliband government.

    The difference is: the latter group voted.
    Which is the weakness of Baxter's - admittedly visually stunning - graphic. It conflates voters and electorate. (Although, given the swings in London, probably a fair few of your facebookies voted too.)

    That's true, but several of those Labour gains were very narrow and seats like Hendon and Harrow East should have been open and shut cases.

    I was also impressed at how well the Conservatives did in Hampstead & Kilburn.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,706
    More than 6 months ago the SNP rejected calls for an inquiry into their dishonest figures in their White Paper as "ridiculous": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11299962/SNP-rejects-inquiry-into-independence-oil-predictions.html

    There have been repeated attacks by Swinney and others on the OBR figures over the last year claiming them to have been politically motivated. Now, when they are not going to be subject to scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government has finally come into line.

    During the latter stages of the Indyref the most common posters explained how there would be an extra £1000 or more for every man, woman and child in Scotland in the event of independence. I have no doubt such ludicrous claims swung many votes. I can confirm that from my own canvassing; it was something frequently brought up on the doorstep.

    It is hard to work out if the SNP are more delusional or dishonest. I would like to think that as the financial consequences of FFA sink home and become real the bubble will finally burst. But who knows? They are impervious to reason.
  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    Casino_Royale said:

    Innocent_Abroad said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    david_herdson said:

    Innocent_Abroad said:

    FPT - and my apologies if this comment has been made before - the graphic shows the depth of Labour's problem. Half the voters it lost thought it was too right-wing. The other half thought it was too left-wing.

    Not sure you can infer that from the graphic. Sure, they lost as many to left-of-centre parties as to right-of-centre ones but the numbers are so small that I'd have thought that many, and probably most, of these were simply floating voters doing what floating voters do: looking for either the best vehicle to protest or the most reliable party to look after them and their country.

    Put simply, enough of Brown's electoral coalition decided that Ed was Crap that he should never be prime minister. They either weren't bothered at the prospect of a Cameron government or actively thought it the best option seriously available.
    The more I think about it, the more some of the post-election voting data makes sense: my facebook friends- virtually all graduates, London-based, Guardian reading - would express various degrees of despair at another Tory government. Such critiques would be liked and re-shared by each others. So whenever I logged on it looked 'game over'. The minority that disagreed didn't post politics on facebook, or much else, and if they did such posts would be ignored - one to two comments or likes at most.

    By contrast, at work, the vast majority of my colleagues are project managers, contract managers and engineers working in the infrastructure sector. They live in the suburbs or home counties and are homeowners. More likely to be on linkedIN than Facebook; the average age is well over 50. Almost to a man, and they were almost all men, they were absolutely horrified at the prospect of an Ed Miliband government.

    The difference is: the latter group voted.
    Which is the weakness of Baxter's - admittedly visually stunning - graphic. It conflates voters and electorate. (Although, given the swings in London, probably a fair few of your facebookies voted too.)

    That's true, but several of those Labour gains were very narrow and seats like Hendon and Harrow East should have been open and shut cases.

    I was also impressed at how well the Conservatives did in Hampstead & Kilburn.
    They lost it. Basically the Lib Dem vote of 2010 split down the middle. The Labour majority increased, and the MP will have a "first time incumbency" effect unless the Boundary Commission go berserk...

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,824
    I don't think I have the will to face the storm of insults and arguments that this header will cause. I'll stick my head above the parapet in the pm.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited June 2015
    Gonna be fun..This could seriously add to Global Warming.. I will take a froth reading every few hours..
  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    richardDodd said:

    Gonna be fun.. I will take a froth reading every few hours..

    Henceforth pb.com means "Political Booing.com" Shall we have a "most abusive poster" competition?

  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    IA.. There could be serious overload of Turnips..
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,980
    Innocent_Abroad said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Innocent_Abroad said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    david_herdson said:

    Innocent_Abroad said:

    FPT - and my apologies if this comment has been made before - the graphic shows the depth of Labour's problem. Half the voters it lost thought it was too right-wing. The other half thought it was too left-wing.

    Not sure you can infer that from the graphic. Sure, they lost as many to left-of-centre parties as to right-of-centre ones but the numbers are so small that I'd have thought that many, and probably most, of these were simply floating voters doing what floating voters do: looking for either the best vehicle to protest or the most reliable party to look after them and their country.

    Put simply, enough of Brown's electoral coalition decided that Ed was Crap that he should never be prime minister. They either weren't bothered at the prospect of a Cameron government or actively thought it the best option seriously available.
    The more I think about it, the more some of the post-election voting data makes sense: my facebook friends- virtually all graduates, London-based, Guardian reading - would express various degrees of despair at another Tory government. Such critiques would be liked and re-shared by each others. So whenever I logged on it looked 'game over'. The minority that disagreed didn't post politics on facebook, or much else, and if they did such posts would be ignored - one to two comments or likes at most.

    By contrast, at work, the vast majority of my colleagues are project managers, contract managers and engineers working in the infrastructure sector. They live in the suburbs or home counties and are homeowners. More likely to be on linkedIN than Facebook; the average age is well over 50. Almost to a man, and they were almost all men, they were absolutely horrified at the prospect of an Ed Miliband government.

    The difference is: the latter group voted.
    Which is the weakness of Baxter's - admittedly visually stunning - graphic. It conflates voters and electorate. (Although, given the swings in London, probably a fair few of your facebookies voted too.)

    That's true, but several of those Labour gains were very narrow and seats like Hendon and Harrow East should have been open and shut cases.

    I was also impressed at how well the Conservatives did in Hampstead & Kilburn.
    They lost it. Basically the Lib Dem vote of 2010 split down the middle. The Labour majority increased, and the MP will have a "first time incumbency" effect unless the Boundary Commission go berserk...

    Yes, but for the Conservatives to clock over 40% in that part of London (with almost a 10% rise on their 2010 election result) was something I never expected.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,980
    Indigo said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Indigo said:

    Sigh...
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3143297/Cameron-tells-BBC-stop-using-Islamic-State-barbarous-terror-group-threatening-British-way-life.html

    David Cameron today called on the BBC not to use the phrase 'Islamic State' when referring to the terror group operating in Iraq and Syria.

    The Prime Minister - who calls the group 'ISIL' - said Muslims would 'recoil' at the phrase being used to justify the 'perversion of a great religion'.
    As far as I can tell, IS, ISIS and ISIL seem to be used more or less interchangeably by commentators and the media.
    Not sure what he thinks the first two letters of ISIL actually stand for... "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", so he is calling it the Islamic State as well. It is so typical of the sort of PR bullshit he seems to enjoy :(

    Critiquing what others say or do and mandating a minute's silence is easy.

    Tackling the problems at source and offering real leadership is hard.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    But..but..but.... It can't be right I mean, if the oil tax revenues are down that much how on earth are the Jocks going to continue to subsidise the rest of the UK in'all ?........


    As this lifeline support from Scotland dries up I suppose this will mean those of us in rUk will shortly be restricted to a limit at the cash points of only 60 quid a time?

  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    Indigo said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Indigo said:

    Sigh...
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3143297/Cameron-tells-BBC-stop-using-Islamic-State-barbarous-terror-group-threatening-British-way-life.html

    David Cameron today called on the BBC not to use the phrase 'Islamic State' when referring to the terror group operating in Iraq and Syria.

    The Prime Minister - who calls the group 'ISIL' - said Muslims would 'recoil' at the phrase being used to justify the 'perversion of a great religion'.
    As far as I can tell, IS, ISIS and ISIL seem to be used more or less interchangeably by commentators and the media.
    Not sure what he thinks the first two letters of ISIL actually stand for... "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", so he is calling it the Islamic State as well. It is so typical of the sort of PR bullshit he seems to enjoy :(

    maybe he's aiming for Caliphate Under Nationalist Trans Syria or something
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    kle4 said:

    I don't think I have the will to face the storm of insults

    There will be no insults. Nicola has spoken. Zoomers are verboten!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,314
    Morning all. I think I may stay out of this debate, had enough of Scotland for this decade.

    From yesterday's thread, surely the easiest way to get the reduction in MPs to 600 through is to link it to their forthcoming pay rise?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,706
    The sad fact is that the Scottish economy is in a very bad way and has had a rising trend of unemployment for some time now driven by the contraction of activity in the North Sea.

    There is nothing a Scottish administration can do about the oil price which is causing major problems as far apart as Russia and Venezuela but Scotland desperately needs a generation of politicians who are not obsessed with constitutional matters like the last 2 have been.

    We have an over large and unreformed public sector where far too little attention has been given to boosting productivity. Our education system is failing badly. The Curriculum for Excellence program has been a bureaucratic disaster and there is accumulating evidence that it is damaging outcomes for our children.

    The College sector has been devastated to pay for the "no fees" commitment for University students. The consequence of this is that approximately 4x as much is spent subsidising each Scottish student at University compared with those at college. When you consider the typical class make up of each segment this is yet another failure against the poor in our society: failed by sink schools that the Scottish government refuses to address (no "failing schools" or special measures here) and then failed again by a tertiary education system that is biased against them.

    These failures have long term consequences for our productivity and future wealth. They scream out for attention. But lets talk about more Scottish powers instead.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,824
    Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    I don't think I have the will to face the storm of insults

    There will be no insults. Nicola has spoken. Zoomers are verboten!
    That's nice, but of course once started they'll fly in from all sides. Plus it's just depressing how his will probably in no way hinder the SNP, at least in the short and medium term, and try are aiming to win in that period,
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,700
    Good morning, everyone.

    First off, I missed it yesterday, but that was a great diagram by Martin Baxter on the matter of where voters went.

    On-topic: I haven't been this astounded since I noticed the sun had risen this morning.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Sandpit said:

    Morning all. I think I may stay out of this debate, had enough of Scotland for this decade.

    From yesterday's thread, surely the easiest way to get the reduction in MPs to 600 through is to link it to their forthcoming pay rise?

    Perhaps a quick way to achieve that reduction is to just extract the SNP from Westminster and send them back to their own Parliament in Edinburgh? It would also have the added benefit of giving more seating space in the HoC for the *cough* ......older and longer serving members as well as creating shorter queues at the till in the Commons Tea room?

    Win win.

    *takes cover*

  • runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536
    These kinds of economics-based arguments have only so much traction, especially when they are coming up against what increasingly resembles a kind of religious cult.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,700
    F1: piece on Raikkonen's potential departure:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/33291701

    Lots of it is a bit obvious, but what struck me was the suggestion Ricciardo might be Ferrari's choice. It does go on to mention the rather obvious potential drawback (with Vettel). Good to see Hulkenberg may get an opportunity if they don't go for the Aussie.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331
    antifrank said:

    This article on Labour internal politics is potentially rather important:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/ed-miliband-changed-labour-party-way-we-dont-yet-fully-appreciate

    Good article. Firstly, it supports my feeling that history will eventually judge EdM to have been a worse leader than Foot (who unlike Ed was handed an impossible task).

    Secondly, I do think there is a real opportunity for a quicker and stronger LD revival than most people expect. It would be helped by electing Lamb as leader and Labour failing to elect Kendall, and both look distinctly possible at the moment.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    Casino_Royale said:

    Indigo said:

    Sigh...
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3143297/Cameron-tells-BBC-stop-using-Islamic-State-barbarous-terror-group-threatening-British-way-life.html

    David Cameron today called on the BBC not to use the phrase 'Islamic State' when referring to the terror group operating in Iraq and Syria.

    The Prime Minister - who calls the group 'ISIL' - said Muslims would 'recoil' at the phrase being used to justify the 'perversion of a great religion'.
    As far as I can tell, IS, ISIS and ISIL seem to be used more or less interchangeably by commentators and the media.

    Edit: looking at those comments, and usual caveats apply, DM readers don't seem too impressed by Mr. Cameron on this


    Didn't really want to mention it, but I listened to the R4 interview and I thought it was a bit of a car crash for the PM. It was the "over earnest Dave" that turned up.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    If reading the comments in the Guardian's blog on the Greece situation were my only guide to people's politics, given the bile against the EU spewed out in large quantities, I'd deduce that the entire left-wing intelligentsia would be voting to leave the EU come the UK referendum. I wonder if they will ...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,700
    Mr. T, ha.

    No.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Morris_Dancer said:

    F1: piece on Raikkonen's potential departure:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/33291701

    Lots of it is a bit obvious, but what struck me was the suggestion Ricciardo might be Ferrari's choice. It does go on to mention the rather obvious potential drawback (with Vettel). Good to see Hulkenberg may get an opportunity if they don't go for the Aussie.

    Mr Morris
    Seems like his poor showing is a result of his difficulty in handling his own front end grip. Whereas his team mate seems to handle it very well.... His own front end I mean....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,700
    Mr. Moses, apparently the kinetic energy was working as normally in Montreal at the hairpin.

    And last time it was his rear end that went wild.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    OchEye said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Indigo said:

    Sigh...
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3143297/Cameron-tells-BBC-stop-using-Islamic-State-barbarous-terror-group-threatening-British-way-life.html

    David Cameron today called on the BBC not to use the phrase 'Islamic State' when referring to the terror group operating in Iraq and Syria.

    The Prime Minister - who calls the group 'ISIL' - said Muslims would 'recoil' at the phrase being used to justify the 'perversion of a great religion'.
    As far as I can tell, IS, ISIS and ISIL seem to be used more or less interchangeably by commentators and the media.

    Edit: looking at those comments, and usual caveats apply, DM readers don't seem too impressed by Mr. Cameron on this
    Didn't really want to mention it, but I listened to the R4 interview and I thought it was a bit of a car crash for the PM. It was the "over earnest Dave" that turned up.

    My friends in counter-terrorism call them Da'ish. For the reasons, this from 'The Week' is helpful:

    "The name Daesh, according to France24, is a "loose acronym" for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (al-Dawla al-Islamiya al-Iraq al-Sham). The name is commonly used by enemies of ISIS, and it also has many negative undertones, as Daesh sounds similar to the Arabic words Daes ("one who crushes something underfoot") and Dahes ("one who sows discord")."
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,123
    MTimT said:

    If reading the comments in the Guardian's blog on the Greece situation were my only guide to people's politics, given the bile against the EU spewed out in large quantities, I'd deduce that the entire left-wing intelligentsia would be voting to leave the EU come the UK referendum. I wonder if they will ...

    There is a lot of talk about a split in the Tory party but I can definitely see a split in the Labour Party on the horizon if things get really bad in Greece.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    MTimT said:

    OchEye said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Indigo said:

    Sigh...
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3143297/Cameron-tells-BBC-stop-using-Islamic-State-barbarous-terror-group-threatening-British-way-life.html

    David Cameron today called on the BBC not to use the phrase 'Islamic State' when referring to the terror group operating in Iraq and Syria.

    The Prime Minister - who calls the group 'ISIL' - said Muslims would 'recoil' at the phrase being used to justify the 'perversion of a great religion'.
    As far as I can tell, IS, ISIS and ISIL seem to be used more or less interchangeably by commentators and the media.

    Edit: looking at those comments, and usual caveats apply, DM readers don't seem too impressed by Mr. Cameron on this
    Didn't really want to mention it, but I listened to the R4 interview and I thought it was a bit of a car crash for the PM. It was the "over earnest Dave" that turned up.
    My friends in counter-terrorism call them Da'ish. For the reasons, this from 'The Week' is helpful:

    "The name Daesh, according to France24, is a "loose acronym" for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (al-Dawla al-Islamiya al-Iraq al-Sham). The name is commonly used by enemies of ISIS, and it also has many negative undertones, as Daesh sounds similar to the Arabic words Daes ("one who crushes something underfoot") and Dahes ("one who sows discord")."

    Very interesting, I was wondering why they were being called Daesh by others in the region.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,551
    MTimT said:

    If reading the comments in the Guardian's blog on the Greece situation were my only guide to people's politics, given the bile against the EU spewed out in large quantities, I'd deduce that the entire left-wing intelligentsia would be voting to leave the EU come the UK referendum. I wonder if they will ...

    Your deduction would be wrong if I am a typical example.

    I comment on the Guardian blog in favour of voting NO and against the unelected Euro technocrats (and for Greece deferring paying it debts for a few decades and staying in the Euro with a dual currency).

    But I am very much in favour of a reformed EU and will be voting YES in the UK Euro referendum.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    DavidL said:

    The sad fact is that the Scottish economy is in a very bad way and has had a rising trend of unemployment for some time now driven by the contraction of activity in the North Sea.

    There is nothing a Scottish administration can do about the oil price which is causing major problems as far apart as Russia and Venezuela but Scotland desperately needs a generation of politicians who are not obsessed with constitutional matters like the last 2 have been.

    We have an over large and unreformed public sector where far too little attention has been given to boosting productivity. Our education system is failing badly. The Curriculum for Excellence program has been a bureaucratic disaster and there is accumulating evidence that it is damaging outcomes for our children.

    The College sector has been devastated to pay for the "no fees" commitment for University students. The consequence of this is that approximately 4x as much is spent subsidising each Scottish student at University compared with those at college. When you consider the typical class make up of each segment this is yet another failure against the poor in our society: failed by sink schools that the Scottish government refuses to address (no "failing schools" or special measures here) and then failed again by a tertiary education system that is biased against them.

    These failures have long term consequences for our productivity and future wealth. They scream out for attention. But lets talk about more Scottish powers instead.

    Outstanding post David - the SNP are failing on jobs and education. Opposition parties in Scotland should ignore constitutional froth and focus on these two areas.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-32719678

    "The number of people out of work in Scotland climbed by 19,000 to 168,000 in the first quarter of the year, according to official figures.

    Office for National Statistics data showed an unemployment rate of 6%, compared with 5.5% for the whole of the UK.

    UK unemployment fell by 35,000 between January and March to 1.83 million.
    Employment in Scotland went down by 3,000 over the three months, and now stands at 2,622,000."
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,980
    MTimT said:

    OchEye said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Indigo said:

    Sigh...
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3143297/Cameron-tells-BBC-stop-using-Islamic-State-barbarous-terror-group-threatening-British-way-life.html

    David Cameron today called on the BBC not to use the phrase 'Islamic State' when referring to the terror group operating in Iraq and Syria.

    The Prime Minister - who calls the group 'ISIL' - said Muslims would 'recoil' at the phrase being used to justify the 'perversion of a great religion'.
    As far as I can tell, IS, ISIS and ISIL seem to be used more or less interchangeably by commentators and the media.

    Edit: looking at those comments, and usual caveats apply, DM readers don't seem too impressed by Mr. Cameron on this
    Didn't really want to mention it, but I listened to the R4 interview and I thought it was a bit of a car crash for the PM. It was the "over earnest Dave" that turned up.
    My friends in counter-terrorism call them Da'ish. For the reasons, this from 'The Week' is helpful:

    "The name Daesh, according to France24, is a "loose acronym" for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (al-Dawla al-Islamiya al-Iraq al-Sham). The name is commonly used by enemies of ISIS, and it also has many negative undertones, as Daesh sounds similar to the Arabic words Daes ("one who crushes something underfoot") and Dahes ("one who sows discord")."

    That sounds like an enemy alien race from Star Trek: The Next Generation.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,551
    Casino_Royale said:

    Indigo said:

    Sigh...
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3143297/Cameron-tells-BBC-stop-using-Islamic-State-barbarous-terror-group-threatening-British-way-life.html

    David Cameron today called on the BBC not to use the phrase 'Islamic State' when referring to the terror group operating in Iraq and Syria.

    The Prime Minister - who calls the group 'ISIL' - said Muslims would 'recoil' at the phrase being used to justify the 'perversion of a great religion'.
    As far as I can tell, IS, ISIS and ISIL seem to be used more or less interchangeably by commentators and the media.

    Edit: looking at those comments, and usual caveats apply, DM readers don't seem too impressed by Mr. Cameron on this


    The BBC insist on calling it Islamic State. I complained to the BBC about a month ago but have not received a reply. I hope David Cameron has better luck at getting them to stop giving ISIL statelike credibility.

    I know ISIL is short for Islamic State of Iraq and Levant but most people don't know that. ISIL sounds like a shiny brand of toilet paper.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    tlg86 said:

    MTimT said:

    If reading the comments in the Guardian's blog on the Greece situation were my only guide to people's politics, given the bile against the EU spewed out in large quantities, I'd deduce that the entire left-wing intelligentsia would be voting to leave the EU come the UK referendum. I wonder if they will ...

    There is a lot of talk about a split in the Tory party but I can definitely see a split in the Labour Party on the horizon if things get really bad in Greece.
    What fun! Just imagine what would happen if the lefties in the Tories joined the righties in Labour and formed a majority party? Won't happen of course, but who would be the new PM, etc..
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    OchEye said:

    tlg86 said:

    MTimT said:

    If reading the comments in the Guardian's blog on the Greece situation were my only guide to people's politics, given the bile against the EU spewed out in large quantities, I'd deduce that the entire left-wing intelligentsia would be voting to leave the EU come the UK referendum. I wonder if they will ...

    There is a lot of talk about a split in the Tory party but I can definitely see a split in the Labour Party on the horizon if things get really bad in Greece.
    What fun! Just imagine what would happen if the lefties in the Tories joined
    What both of them ? Ken is ancient and Hezza aint even an MP.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,270
    Barnesian said:

    MTimT said:

    If reading the comments in the Guardian's blog on the Greece situation were my only guide to people's politics, given the bile against the EU spewed out in large quantities, I'd deduce that the entire left-wing intelligentsia would be voting to leave the EU come the UK referendum. I wonder if they will ...

    Your deduction would be wrong if I am a typical example.

    I comment on the Guardian blog in favour of voting NO and against the unelected Euro technocrats (and for Greece deferring paying it debts for a few decades and staying in the Euro with a dual currency).

    But I am very much in favour of a reformed EU and will be voting YES in the UK Euro referendum.
    And if it is an unreformed EU continuing on its path of integration and interference would you still be voting YES?
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    TGOHF said:

    OchEye said:

    tlg86 said:

    MTimT said:

    If reading the comments in the Guardian's blog on the Greece situation were my only guide to people's politics, given the bile against the EU spewed out in large quantities, I'd deduce that the entire left-wing intelligentsia would be voting to leave the EU come the UK referendum. I wonder if they will ...

    There is a lot of talk about a split in the Tory party but I can definitely see a split in the Labour Party on the horizon if things get really bad in Greece.
    What fun! Just imagine what would happen if the lefties in the Tories joined
    What both of them ? Ken is ancient and Hezza aint even an MP.
    Giggles! OK, how about those in the Tories who think Osborne is not a new Messiah but is only a very naughty boy
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    On topic: This suggests to me very strongly that the government should simply call the SNP's bluff. The Scots will not vote for independence because, no matter how much many may feel distinct in terms of identity, they recognise that the deficit and currency story for an independent Scotland would be a catastrophe.

    Scotland gets about 20% more public spending per person than the UK average - so if Osborne wants to save billions off the welfare budget he'd be well advised to start in Scotland. Give them Full Fiscal Autonomy right now.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Barnesian said:

    MTimT said:

    If reading the comments in the Guardian's blog on the Greece situation were my only guide to people's politics, given the bile against the EU spewed out in large quantities, I'd deduce that the entire left-wing intelligentsia would be voting to leave the EU come the UK referendum. I wonder if they will ...

    Your deduction would be wrong if I am a typical example.

    I comment on the Guardian blog in favour of voting NO and against the unelected Euro technocrats (and for Greece deferring paying it debts for a few decades and staying in the Euro with a dual currency).

    But I am very much in favour of a reformed EU and will be voting YES in the UK Euro referendum.
    And if it is an unreformed EU continuing on its path of integration and interference would you still be voting YES?
    I find it incredible that anyone can say with 100% certainty which way they will vote.

    I'm undecided at present - I await the offer.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    OchEye said:

    TGOHF said:

    OchEye said:

    tlg86 said:

    MTimT said:

    If reading the comments in the Guardian's blog on the Greece situation were my only guide to people's politics, given the bile against the EU spewed out in large quantities, I'd deduce that the entire left-wing intelligentsia would be voting to leave the EU come the UK referendum. I wonder if they will ...

    There is a lot of talk about a split in the Tory party but I can definitely see a split in the Labour Party on the horizon if things get really bad in Greece.
    What fun! Just imagine what would happen if the lefties in the Tories joined
    What both of them ? Ken is ancient and Hezza aint even an MP.
    Giggles! OK, how about those in the Tories who think Osborne is not a new Messiah but is only a very naughty boy
    Name and shame !
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,502
    MTimT said:

    If reading the comments in the Guardian's blog on the Greece situation were my only guide to people's politics, given the bile against the EU spewed out in large quantities, I'd deduce that the entire left-wing intelligentsia would be voting to leave the EU come the UK referendum. I wonder if they will ...

    The hard left has always been anti-EU - they see it as an institutionalisation of free market capitalism with some Christian Democrat softening - some worker and consumer rights, a bit of environmentalism - thrown in. They're correct, and it's why I opposed membership in the 1970s. I support it now because, hey, the world world has embraced free market capitalism - give or take a few places - and that Christian Democrat softening seems better than nothing (and less politically, because I think it makes sense to integrate with our neighbours). But on the far left they still see it in similar terms to Nigel Farage - an obstacle in having our own way.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,853
    edited June 2015
    I don't get Dave telling people not to call I.S. the Islamic State, when he himself is using ISIL.

    This is a bit like saying don't use "United Kingdom" instead of "UKGBU" (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ulster) (Not that the latter is used) - but the comparison stands; because we're "Not united".
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,700
    Mr. Pulpstar, indeed.

    Language does matter, but, for the reason you point out, Cameron's plea does not make sense.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,767
    Rob Lowe vs Owen Jones... awsomesauce
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,853
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Pulpstar, indeed.

    Language does matter, but, for the reason you point out, Cameron's plea does not make sense.

    Yes - Dave should use "Da'ash" if he wants to make this point.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,551
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Barnesian said:

    MTimT said:

    If reading the comments in the Guardian's blog on the Greece situation were my only guide to people's politics, given the bile against the EU spewed out in large quantities, I'd deduce that the entire left-wing intelligentsia would be voting to leave the EU come the UK referendum. I wonder if they will ...

    Your deduction would be wrong if I am a typical example.

    I comment on the Guardian blog in favour of voting NO and against the unelected Euro technocrats (and for Greece deferring paying it debts for a few decades and staying in the Euro with a dual currency).

    But I am very much in favour of a reformed EU and will be voting YES in the UK Euro referendum.
    And if it is an unreformed EU continuing on its path of integration and interference would you still be voting YES?
    I don't mind more integration within the Eurozone with a more flexible arrangement outside it, - and it depends what you mean by interference.

    I would like to see the prinicple of subsidiarity more robustly applied with countries able to red card unwarranted central inteference. I would like to see the same principle applied within the UK. I would also like to see a major reduction in waste and buraucracy in the EU (and the UK).

    However, when the referendum is held. I don't think the reforms will be clear. I will still vote YES. I am an optimist.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,700
    Mr. Barnesian, when has the EU ever reduced the power the centre has over the nation-states?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,752
    SouthamObserver said:

    The economic and fiscal case for Scottish independence is stone dead. It's not just the oil price, it's the huge deficit and it's the currency. The SNP has no credible answers. But it will lie and it will dissemble, for there is no misery the SNP would not inflict on Scotland's population in order to get the international frontier that is its only motivation. And the SNP could get what it wants. That's because the emotional case for independence is still alive and kicking. The Westminster parties, and Labour in particular, have failed utterly to counter it. Logically, you'd expect the SNP to run a mile from a new referendum. But it is setting the agenda so completely in Scotland that in reality the chances are it will call one and win. Legally, though, this will only be binding if Westminster agrees to it. That could be Scotland's salvation.

    forget the fiscal case for independence. It is irrelevant.

    There is only one case for independence and that is the "Braveheart" case.

    An independent Scotland will face all kinds of economic challenges but if it's what you want, you will put up with it all because you will have thrown off the oppressive yoke of your colonial masters.

    It is of course as you say the lying that is slightly irritating but you know what they say about omelettes and in the scheme of things (a strong, independent Scotland in a few dozen years), it really makes no odds.

    People who point to this projected deficit or that, are missing the point. As, I suppose, are those such as the SNP who say it doesn't matter for the people of Scotland today and their living conditions.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,980
    NickPalmer said:

    MTimT said:

    If reading the comments in the Guardian's blog on the Greece situation were my only guide to people's politics, given the bile against the EU spewed out in large quantities, I'd deduce that the entire left-wing intelligentsia would be voting to leave the EU come the UK referendum. I wonder if they will ...

    The hard left has always been anti-EU - they see it as an institutionalisation of free market capitalism with some Christian Democrat softening - some worker and consumer rights, a bit of environmentalism - thrown in. They're correct, and it's why I opposed membership in the 1970s. I support it now because, hey, the world world has embraced free market capitalism - give or take a few places - and that Christian Democrat softening seems better than nothing (and less politically, because I think it makes sense to integrate with our neighbours). But on the far left they still see it in similar terms to Nigel Farage - an obstacle in having our own way.

    I think most of the Left instinctively supports it because it's international and anti-nation state. It's a form of progressive values signalling.

    Values trump any fundamental economics debate in politics these days.
  • Bond_James_BondBond_James_Bond Posts: 1,939
    edited June 2015
    duplicated - weird
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,752
    Barnesian said:

    MTimT said:

    If reading the comments in the Guardian's blog on the Greece situation were my only guide to people's politics, given the bile against the EU spewed out in large quantities, I'd deduce that the entire left-wing intelligentsia would be voting to leave the EU come the UK referendum. I wonder if they will ...

    Your deduction would be wrong if I am a typical example.

    I comment on the Guardian blog in favour of voting NO and against the unelected Euro technocrats (and for Greece deferring paying it debts for a few decades and staying in the Euro with a dual currency).

    But I am very much in favour of a reformed EU and will be voting YES in the UK Euro referendum.
    Dear god help us all.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    edited June 2015
    TGOHF said:

    OchEye said:

    TGOHF said:

    OchEye said:

    tlg86 said:

    MTimT said:

    If reading the comments in the Guardian's blog on the Greece situation were my only guide to people's politics, given the bile against the EU spewed out in large quantities, I'd deduce that the entire left-wing intelligentsia would be voting to leave the EU come the UK referendum. I wonder if they will ...

    There is a lot of talk about a split in the Tory party but I can definitely see a split in the Labour Party on the horizon if things get really bad in Greece.
    What fun! Just imagine what would happen if the lefties in the Tories joined
    What both of them ? Ken is ancient and Hezza aint even an MP.
    Giggles! OK, how about those in the Tories who think Osborne is not a new Messiah but is only a very naughty boy
    Name and shame !
    Oh I couldn't, I would be typing names for the rest of the morning and according to some rumour, it is supposed to be the start of a heatwave and I have to get serious sun tanning in before the snow arrives. Er! Supervising the gardening from the lounger.
  • Bond_James_BondBond_James_Bond Posts: 1,939
    TOPPING said:

    Barnesian said:

    MTimT said:

    If reading the comments in the Guardian's blog on the Greece situation were my only guide to people's politics, given the bile against the EU spewed out in large quantities, I'd deduce that the entire left-wing intelligentsia would be voting to leave the EU come the UK referendum. I wonder if they will ...

    Your deduction would be wrong if I am a typical example.

    I comment on the Guardian blog in favour of voting NO and against the unelected Euro technocrats (and for Greece deferring paying it debts for a few decades and staying in the Euro with a dual currency).

    But I am very much in favour of a reformed EU and will be voting YES in the UK Euro referendum.
    Dear god help us all.
    I'm in favour of staying in but minded to vote No so they have to improve the deal.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    ONS revisions - mainly good.

    http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_408451.pdf

    Main points
    • UK Gross Domestic Product in volume terms was estimated to have increased by 0.4% between
    Quarter 4 (Oct to Dec) 2014 and Quarter 1 (Jan to Mar) 2015, revised up 0.1 percentage points
    from the previous estimate of GDP published 28 May 2015.

    • GDP was estimated to have increased by 3.0% in 2014, compared with 2013, revised up 0.2
    percentage points from the previously published estimate.

    • Between Quarter 1 2014 and Quarter 1 2015, GDP in volume terms increased by 2.9%, revised
    up 0.5 percentage points from the previously published estimate.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @dsmitheconomics: GDP growth revised up to 0.4% (from 0.3%) in Q1 and to 3% (from 2.8%) in 2014: http://t.co/Iy9jo3LSQf
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,752
    Pulpstar said:

    I don't get Dave telling people not to call I.S. the Islamic State, when he himself is using ISIL.

    This is a bit like saying don't use "United Kingdom" instead of "UKGBU" (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ulster) (Not that the latter is used) - but the comparison stands; because we're "Not united".

    The only reason I can think of (and it's not the one put forward) is because Islamic State is the name that, er, the Islamic State most recently gave to itself (after ISIL, ISIS, etc). It would therefore be construed as an act of opposition, albeit minor.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Barnesian said:

    MTimT said:

    If reading the comments in the Guardian's blog on the Greece situation were my only guide to people's politics, given the bile against the EU spewed out in large quantities, I'd deduce that the entire left-wing intelligentsia would be voting to leave the EU come the UK referendum. I wonder if they will ...

    Your deduction would be wrong if I am a typical example.

    I comment on the Guardian blog in favour of voting NO and against the unelected Euro technocrats (and for Greece deferring paying it debts for a few decades and staying in the Euro with a dual currency).

    But I am very much in favour of a reformed EU and will be voting YES in the UK Euro referendum.
    Barnesian, that is a fair position provided suitable reforms are made. If, as is far more likely, they are not, then what? Hold you nose and stay with a union run by bureaucrats you despise? Or vote to leave?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    edited June 2015
    OchEye said:

    TGOHF said:

    OchEye said:

    TGOHF said:

    OchEye said:

    tlg86 said:

    MTimT said:

    If reading the comments in the Guardian's blog on the Greece situation were my only guide to people's politics, given the bile against the EU spewed out in large quantities, I'd deduce that the entire left-wing intelligentsia would be voting to leave the EU come the UK referendum. I wonder if they will ...

    There is a lot of talk about a split in the Tory party but I can definitely see a split in the Labour Party on the horizon if things get really bad in Greece.
    What fun! Just imagine what would happen if the lefties in the Tories joined
    What both of them ? Ken is ancient and Hezza aint even an MP.
    Giggles! OK, how about those in the Tories who think Osborne is not a new Messiah but is only a very naughty boy
    Name and shame !
    Oh I couldn't, I would be typing names for the rest of the morning and according to some rumour, it is supposed to be the start of a heatwave and I have to get serious sun tanning in before the snow arrives. Er! Supervising the gardening from the lounger.
    I'm sure there is a long list of MPs who are really annoyed at the CoTE for creating a booming economy, slashing unemployment and setting the ground for a thumping majority.

    Exclusively on the opposition benches mind you.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,752
    edited June 2015
    Bond_James_Bond said:

    TOPPING said:

    Barnesian said:

    MTimT said:

    If reading the comments in the Guardian's blog on the Greece situation were my only guide to people's politics, given the bile against the EU spewed out in large quantities, I'd deduce that the entire left-wing intelligentsia would be voting to leave the EU come the UK referendum. I wonder if they will ...

    Your deduction would be wrong if I am a typical example.

    I comment on the Guardian blog in favour of voting NO and against the unelected Euro technocrats (and for Greece deferring paying it debts for a few decades and staying in the Euro with a dual currency).

    But I am very much in favour of a reformed EU and will be voting YES in the UK Euro referendum.
    Dear god help us all.
    I'm in favour of staying in but minded to vote No so they have to improve the deal.
    I am in a (surely large) group who would like to stay in but whose blood is boiled by some of the ever closer union measures and pronouncements.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,767
    Casino_Royale said:

    NickPalmer said:

    MTimT said:

    If reading the comments in the Guardian's blog on the Greece situation were my only guide to people's politics, given the bile against the EU spewed out in large quantities, I'd deduce that the entire left-wing intelligentsia would be voting to leave the EU come the UK referendum. I wonder if they will ...

    The hard left has always been anti-EU - they see it as an institutionalisation of free market capitalism with some Christian Democrat softening - some worker and consumer rights, a bit of environmentalism - thrown in. They're correct, and it's why I opposed membership in the 1970s. I support it now because, hey, the world world has embraced free market capitalism - give or take a few places - and that Christian Democrat softening seems better than nothing (and less politically, because I think it makes sense to integrate with our neighbours). But on the far left they still see it in similar terms to Nigel Farage - an obstacle in having our own way.

    I think most of the Left instinctively supports it because it's international and anti-nation state. It's a form of progressive values signalling.

    Values trump any fundamental economics debate in politics these days.
    But then the left is also anti-globalisation, which the EU faciliates...

    It must be so confusing for them.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,551
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Barnesian, when has the EU ever reduced the power the centre has over the nation-states?

    The EU is an entity that the elected governments of 28 countries have created for their mutual benefit. The national governments have a lot of power within the EU to shape it for all our benefit. I hope that is what Cameron is aiming to do with the leaders of the other 27 countries.

    The problem with all large organisations is the central bureaucracy that bloats and accumulates unaccountable power. In a large public company, the non-execs on behalf of the shareholders (ie national leaders on behalf of their electorate) will instruct the CEO to sort it out PDQ or be fired. The technocrats who run the EU (and the IMF) should occasionally be fired to show who is in charge.

    I do think that Cameron has an opportunity, together with other national leaders, to make a really big improvement to how the EU operates. I just hope he isn't small minded and UK tactical with an eye on his back benchers. He needs to provide leadership within Europe.

    As I said, I am an optimist.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    I've found an MP who doesn't like the CoTE

    http://news.sky.com/story/1452113/salmond-reveals-plans-to-lock-out-tories

    "Scotland's former First Minister said his party would vote as a block against Tory policy in a bid to trigger a vote of no confidence."

    :D
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,898
    Bond_James_Bond said:

    TOPPING said:

    Barnesian said:

    MTimT said:

    If reading the comments in the Guardian's blog on the Greece situation were my only guide to people's politics, given the bile against the EU spewed out in large quantities, I'd deduce that the entire left-wing intelligentsia would be voting to leave the EU come the UK referendum. I wonder if they will ...

    Your deduction would be wrong if I am a typical example.

    I comment on the Guardian blog in favour of voting NO and against the unelected Euro technocrats (and for Greece deferring paying it debts for a few decades and staying in the Euro with a dual currency).

    But I am very much in favour of a reformed EU and will be voting YES in the UK Euro referendum.
    Dear god help us all.
    I'm in favour of staying in but minded to vote No so they have to improve the deal.
    Ah the Greek approach.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @OliverCooper: British consumer confidence has hit its highest level in more than 15 years. http://t.co/eweER9ItpY

    This post sponsored by NewsSense™
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,551
    TGOHF said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Barnesian said:

    MTimT said:

    If reading the comments in the Guardian's blog on the Greece situation were my only guide to people's politics, given the bile against the EU spewed out in large quantities, I'd deduce that the entire left-wing intelligentsia would be voting to leave the EU come the UK referendum. I wonder if they will ...

    Your deduction would be wrong if I am a typical example.

    I comment on the Guardian blog in favour of voting NO and against the unelected Euro technocrats (and for Greece deferring paying it debts for a few decades and staying in the Euro with a dual currency).

    But I am very much in favour of a reformed EU and will be voting YES in the UK Euro referendum.
    And if it is an unreformed EU continuing on its path of integration and interference would you still be voting YES?
    I find it incredible that anyone can say with 100% certainty which way they will vote.

    I'm undecided at present - I await the offer.
    It is only incredible if you are undecided. Lots of people have already decided they will vote NO including Nigel Farage. Lots have already decided they will vote YES including me and Ken Clarke.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,853
    I'll probably vote in, I'd tell a pollster "Out" though.
  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    edited June 2015
    Barnesian said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Barnesian, when has the EU ever reduced the power the centre has over the nation-states?

    The EU is an entity that the elected governments of 28 countries have created for their mutual benefit. The national governments have a lot of power within the EU to shape it for all our benefit. I hope that is what Cameron is aiming to do with the leaders of the other 27 countries.

    The problem with all large organisations is the central bureaucracy that bloats and accumulates unaccountable power. In a large public company, the non-execs on behalf of the shareholders (ie national leaders on behalf of their electorate) will instruct the CEO to sort it out PDQ or be fired. The technocrats who run the EU (and the IMF) should occasionally be fired to show who is in charge.

    I do think that Cameron has an opportunity, together with other national leaders, to make a really big improvement to how the EU operates. I just hope he isn't small minded and UK tactical with an eye on his back benchers. He needs to provide leadership within Europe.

    As I said, I am an optimist.
    Do non-execs really do that? Occasionally, no doubt, but more often they are told to shut up because they don't know what they're talking about. (Which, on the whole, they don't.)

    The best way to get a promotion in a bureaucracy, whether or not it is supposedly a profit-making outfit, is to be the only person in the room who understands what you're saying.

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,123
    Pulpstar said:

    I'll probably vote in, I'd tell a pollster "Out" though.

    What will there be more of - people like you saying out to put the heat on the negotiations - or shy nos?
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Sky News Newsdesk ‏@SkyNewsBreak 3m3 minutes ago
    Double Cheltenham Gold Cup & five-time King George VI Chase winner #KautoStar put down after suffering injuries to his pelvis & neck in fall
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Barnesian said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Barnesian, when has the EU ever reduced the power the centre has over the nation-states?

    The EU is an entity that the elected governments of 28 countries have created for their mutual benefit. The national governments have a lot of power within the EU to shape it for all our benefit. I hope that is what Cameron is aiming to do with the leaders of the other 27 countries.

    The problem with all large organisations is the central bureaucracy that bloats and accumulates unaccountable power. In a large public company, the non-execs on behalf of the shareholders (ie national leaders on behalf of their electorate) will instruct the CEO to sort it out PDQ or be fired. The technocrats who run the EU (and the IMF) should occasionally be fired to show who is in charge.

    I do think that Cameron has an opportunity, together with other national leaders, to make a really big improvement to how the EU operates. I just hope he isn't small minded and UK tactical with an eye on his back benchers. He needs to provide leadership within Europe.

    As I said, I am an optimist.
    Totally agree - the EU bureaucrats need to be told to just do the work they are told to do and not to develop any new policies. First they should focus on the elimination of fraud so that the accounts can be signed off. That is a prerequisite and is their responsibility.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Gold Cup Winner x2 no more.

    http://www.itv.com/news/2015-06-30/legendary-racehorse-kauto-star-put-down-after-fall/
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @EKourtali: Greek government is thinking of returning to the negotiating table by tonight, Greek media report
  • DisraeliDisraeli Posts: 1,106
    NickPalmer said:


    The hard left has always been anti-EU - they see it as an institutionalisation of free market capitalism with some Christian Democrat softening - some worker and consumer rights, a bit of environmentalism - thrown in. They're correct, and it's why I opposed membership in the 1970s. I support it now because, hey, the world world has embraced free market capitalism - give or take a few places - and that Christian Democrat softening seems better than nothing (and less politically, because I think it makes sense to integrate with our neighbours). But on the far left they still see it in similar terms to Nigel Farage - an obstacle in having our own way.

    For some reason this makes me think of this quote:

    "The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him. The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself. All progress depends on the unreasonable man."

    - George Bernard Shaw
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,980
    Slackbladder said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    NickPalmer said:

    MTimT said:

    If reading the comments in the Guardian's blog on the Greece situation were my only guide to people's politics, given the bile against the EU spewed out in large quantities, I'd deduce that the entire left-wing intelligentsia would be voting to leave the EU come the UK referendum. I wonder if they will ...

    The hard left has always been anti-EU - they see it as an institutionalisation of free market capitalism with some Christian Democrat softening - some worker and consumer rights, a bit of environmentalism - thrown in. They're correct, and it's why I opposed membership in the 1970s. I support it now because, hey, the world world has embraced free market capitalism - give or take a few places - and that Christian Democrat softening seems better than nothing (and less politically, because I think it makes sense to integrate with our neighbours). But on the far left they still see it in similar terms to Nigel Farage - an obstacle in having our own way.

    I think most of the Left instinctively supports it because it's international and anti-nation state. It's a form of progressive values signalling.

    Values trump any fundamental economics debate in politics these days.
    But then the left is also anti-globalisation, which the EU faciliates...

    It must be so confusing for them.
    I don't think they think very hard about it.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,551
    Innocent_Abroad said:

    Barnesian said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Barnesian, when has the EU ever reduced the power the centre has over the nation-states?

    The EU is an entity that the elected governments of 28 countries have created for their mutual benefit. The national governments have a lot of power within the EU to shape it for all our benefit. I hope that is what Cameron is aiming to do with the leaders of the other 27 countries.

    The problem with all large organisations is the central bureaucracy that bloats and accumulates unaccountable power. In a large public company, the non-execs on behalf of the shareholders (ie national leaders on behalf of their electorate) will instruct the CEO to sort it out PDQ or be fired. The technocrats who run the EU (and the IMF) should occasionally be fired to show who is in charge.

    I do think that Cameron has an opportunity, together with other national leaders, to make a really big improvement to how the EU operates. I just hope he isn't small minded and UK tactical with an eye on his back benchers. He needs to provide leadership within Europe.

    As I said, I am an optimist.
    Do non-execs really do that? Occasionally, no doubt, but more often they are told to shut up because they don't know what they're talking about. (Which, on the whole, they don't.)

    The best way to get a promotion in a bureaucracy, whether or not it is supposedly a profit-making outfit, is to be the only person in the room who understands what you're saying.

    No - they don't really do that. They should though.

    The other analogy is the UK Civil Service - particularly the Treasury, the Foreign Office and MOD which each have a very strong culture with a lot of power which transcends elected governments. They need very firm handling with the occasional firing of the Permanent Secretary.

    I think the unelected officials in the EU should be under a lot more pressure (their job on the line) to sort things out in favour of what national goverments want. I'm deeply unimpressed by many of the current top EU officials (and by Lagarde who has plummeted in my estimation).
This discussion has been closed.