politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » “Call me Dave”: The Ashcroft revelations in the Mail appear

OldKingCole said:

HurstLlama said:

Alanbrooke said:

Has there ever been a dafter trade mission than the current visit to China

- we offer them loan guarantees
- football bungs
- access to our rail contracts

Surely the point is we sell to them.

Osborne is China's best salesman.

#kowtow

I am very pleased to read that, Mr. Brooke. I had thought it was only me that felt Osborne's trip and announcements were daft, if not completely bonkers. I was beginning to fear that I was losing my marbles as so many people seem to think that giving China bungs was a good idea and inviting them to come and asset strip even better.

We often disagree, Mr L, but on this we are at one.

Once upon a time British nuclear (and other) engineers were among the world’s best. What’s happened?
And why is a Conservative Government disposing of British interest in industry in this fashion?

I think as the years roll on, Mr. Cole, I think we agree on more and more. On what has happened to the UK engineering base I think the answer may lie with Mr. Southam's oft repeated message. We still have great engineers, some of the best anywhere, what we also have is piss poor strategic level managers who are unprepared to consider the long term. The UK's main failure has been for many decades its in ability to produce top quality management. In recent years, with the advent of the fantastically remunerated corporate superstars, the situation seems to have only gotten worse.

Clinton seems to have re-established a clear lead in Iowa, even though her national figures aren't overwhelming - it's hard to see Sanders really overtaking her. Biden is another matter - if he runs, he'll get an initial boost, but also come under more scrutiny again. My impression FWIW is that he'd have a good shot but fall short unless Clinton's effort imploded.

On the GOP side, TimT is of course right that most of us see the GOP field (the agreeable Kasich excepted) as a bit weird for political/irreligious reasons. Some of them - Rubio, for instance - look genuinely solid candidates, careful in what they say but forceful all the same. Some do look out of their depth, though - with the best will in the world, Carson seemed to me in the first debate completely at sea, yet he's up there among the leaders. There seems to be a risk that they'll pick a weak candidate just because he has a spurt singling him or her out as the "stop Trump" candidate.

HurstLlama said:

OldKingCole said:

HurstLlama said:

Alanbrooke said:

Has there ever been a dafter trade mission than the current visit to China

- we offer them loan guarantees
- football bungs
- access to our rail contracts

Surely the point is we sell to them.

Osborne is China's best salesman.

#kowtow

I am very pleased to read that, Mr. Brooke. I had thought it was only me that felt Osborne's trip and announcements were daft, if not completely bonkers. I was beginning to fear that I was losing my marbles as so many people seem to think that giving China bungs was a good idea and inviting them to come and asset strip even better.

We often disagree, Mr L, but on this we are at one.

Once upon a time British nuclear (and other) engineers were among the world’s best. What’s happened?
And why is a Conservative Government disposing of British interest in industry in this fashion?

I think as the years roll on, Mr. Cole, I think we agree on more and more. On what has happened to the UK engineering base I think the answer may lie with Mr. Southam's oft repeated message. We still have great engineers, some of the best anywhere, what we also have is piss poor strategic level managers who are unprepared to consider the long term. The UK's main failure has been for many decades its in ability to produce top quality management. In recent years, with the advent of the fantastically remunerated corporate superstars, the situation seems to have only gotten worse.

We have also sold everything to foreign countries/companies , public and private.

JosiasJessop said:

tlg86 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Morris_Dancer said:

F1: just a reminder that the timezone difference means the pre-qualifying piece will be up tomorrow.

Qualifying is at 6am on Saturday. The race start is 5am on Sunday. The reason for the quite early start is to give more daylight towards the end of the race, particularly if it's extended due to a red flag, following the accident Bianchi suffered last year (this early start time applies to a couple of other races as well, I think).

I see Red Bull are throwing their toys out of the pram once again:
http://planetf1.com/news/red-bull-want-engine-parity-with-ferrari/

I'm starting to think that F1 will be better off without their involvement, *if* the team can be saved.

Demanding engine parity, ffs. If they really wanted that then they should just develop their own engine or, just perhaps, not treat the engine supplier with which they had four years of success so disgracefully.

Who'd want to supply them given the way they've treated Renault?

So, I don't follow it as closely as I used to, but in the lead up to the new rules I definitely got the sense that the rules had been designed by Mercedes. The problem is there is not in season testing or development. You have what you have, which means after the first race we know who's won.

I'm not sure you can say the rules were designed by Mercedes. They just developed an innovative engine according to those rules, seeing an approach that the other engine manufacturers did not see. The engine homogenization rules then made it hard for their rivals to respond.

They were certainly lobbying for the rules to be as they are - just like the other teams lobby for what they want. What's killed the sport is the lack of development in season and tarmac runoff areas.

The bit about votes at conference being binding policy is epically good news - for the Tories.

HYUFD said:

In the Times today Corbyn confirms he will oppose the benefits cap completely, oppose Trident renewal if Conference does and also refuses to commit to meet any business leaders at Conference focusing on members

SouthamObserver said:

If you believe the Ashcroft Indy ref account - and there seems no reason not to - it is clear that Cameron was/is a committed Unionist, strongly identifies as British and understood the enormity of the consequences of a Yes vote and that he would have resigned if No had lost. That stands to reason - you can't preside over the break-up of a 300 year old state and carry on regardless.

Moving forward that tells us:
1. There will be no further Westminster-sanctioned Indy referendums while he is PM.
2. The government is likely to give ground on the Scotland Act.
3. Whoever takes over as PM is going to be crucial to whether the Union survives. Osborne probably cares, Boris probably doesn't.

I expect it'll all be over in 10 years.

Boris is a unionist FFA will be the end point Quebec is still in Canada after two referenda

Plato_Says said:

The bit about votes at conference being binding policy is epically good news - for the Tories.

HYUFD said:

In the Times today Corbyn confirms he will oppose the benefits cap completely, oppose Trident renewal if Conference does and also refuses to commit to meet any business leaders at Conference focusing on members

Yes although union votes may back Trident against Corbyn loyalists

redcliffe62 said:

I think the revelation that the Queen did indeed interfere in the referendum at the behest of Cameron is a major story even if it does not resonate within the M25. Trying to define how far she could go by leaks which were then reported as royal sources in purdah period broke many rules.
Queen Elizabeth the First of Britain is clearly Queen Elizabeth the Second of England at heart. Fair enough, but do not complain when royalty despite Witchell's fawnings continues to be as popular as a fart in a spacesuit north of the Tweed.

Total turnips.

There is precisely no evidence that the Queen intervened in the campaign. Speculation, gossip and "leaks" make a weak case risible.

The Queen is also Elizabeth II as the higher regnal number is used from the former kingdoms of England and Scotland.

I fear the only "fart" on display is the one your brain caused to write such nonsense.

JosiasJessop said:

HurstLlama said:

OldKingCole said:

HurstLlama said:

Alanbrooke said:

Has there ever been a dafter trade mission than the current visit to China

- we offer them loan guarantees
- football bungs
- access to our rail contracts

Surely the point is we sell to them.

Osborne is China's best salesman.

#kowtow

I am very pleased to read that, Mr. Brooke. I had thought it was only me that felt Osborne's trip and announcements were daft, if not completely bonkers. I was beginning to fear that I was losing my marbles as so many people seem to think that giving China bungs was a good idea and inviting them to come and asset strip even better.

We often disagree, Mr L, but on this we are at one.

Once upon a time British nuclear (and other) engineers were among the world’s best. What’s happened?
And why is a Conservative Government disposing of British interest in industry in this fashion?

I think as the years roll on, Mr. Cole, I think we agree on more and more. On what has happened to the UK engineering base I think the answer may lie with Mr. Southam's oft repeated message. We still have great engineers, some of the best anywhere, what we also have is piss poor strategic level managers who are unprepared to consider the long term. The UK's main failure has been for many decades its in ability to produce top quality management. In recent years, with the advent of the fantastically remunerated corporate superstars, the situation seems to have only gotten worse.

One company I was sort-of involved with (at the grunt level) was having terrible trouble financing a long-term project that would take seven years to pay back. Eventually they went down the VC route, which they really wanted to avoid.

This short-termist thinking is everywhere. If we were thinking long-term then HS2 would be a no-brainer, as would HS2.

Good morning all. I have to agree with your points. However, you do not get promoted or rewarded for taking a long term view. As I've mentioned recently, the public sector has five-year spending rounds. In the private sector, I've always struggled to get support for a business case where the payback is north of three years.

Metrics drive behaviour. If you want long term thinking, it has to be rewarded. Currently it isn't, and I see no trend that will change that. In fact, the trends are in the other direction - who knows what the world will be like in five years?

MikeK said:

Good morning all:
For those interested, the UKIP conference is being covered by the Parliament channel. Starts about 10:00am this morning I believe.

A year ago, UKIP had such high hopes, with their two MP's set to become over a hundred (ahem...)....the ruins of the Conservative Party was to be their first great scalp on the road to office.

Now people just point and laugh. Where did it all go so wrong leader former leader leader Nigel Farage?

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

The big political issue that the book has raised is the timing of Cameron’s knowledge of Lord Ashcroft non Dom status. That could go on.

Yes, but. Politically it is the most damaging, but since its been buried in a tidal wave of effluent and trivia it will be easy to bat away with 'How can anyone believe anything from an author who claims x y & z.....'

Carlotta, in case you missed it, I know it is one of your favourite concerns:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34113658

So, its worse than three years ago, and....

The figures showed that activity at A&E departments was at its lowest level for July in the past five years, with staff dealing with 131,948 cases.

Well done, NHS Scotland!

Can you not read , activity = patients, clue , lowest in 3 years means less needing treatment and all treated much quicker.

So on a lower bar, they are still worse than three years ago

Just that they are the best of the four Health Services.

Link?

JosiasJessop said:

I tend to think that blaming the managers in totality is wrong. What we suffer from here in the UK, from politics, through finance, and then management, is short-termist thinking. People think of the next year, rather than the next ten or twenty. In some ways that is good, as if you don't concentrate on the next year, the company will not be around in ten or twenty. But in other ways it is terrible, as the organisation is not ready to face the future.

One company I was sort-of involved with (at the grunt level) was having terrible trouble financing a long-term project that would take seven years to pay back. Eventually they went down the VC route, which they really wanted to avoid.

This short-termist thinking is everywhere. If we were thinking long-term then HS2 would be a no-brainer, as would HS2.

Mr. J., I fully agree on the short-termism of senior people in the UK. It is understandable because people will think in terms of their reward cycle. Someone on a rolling short term contract in which success is measured in terms of share price will concentrate on boosting share price in the short term and if the company ceases to exist in ten years it is not a problem to them. It is however a mindset which the UK needs to break.

The answer I think lies in a drastic reform of the rules of corporate ownership and governance. However to get to that one would first need to find politicians who are prepared to think about the long term in the first place. The Conservative Party is currently in a position whereby they might, might, be in a position to think in terms beyond the next election - certainly as far out as 2025. Unfortunately the lead would have to come from George Osborne and he doesn't seem to have a clue.

P.S. If we were really serious about HS2 then we wouldn't be thinking of terminating the trains miles from the centre of London and taking 16 years to re-develop half of Euston Station. Really that project is now just descending into farce. Its business case is in tatters and none of the promised benefits, save maybe that of more capacity, are likely to be delivered. Rather than inviting the Chinese to come and build it Osborne would be better putting it out of its misery.

JosiasJessop said:

This short-termist thinking is everywhere. If we were thinking long-term then HS2 would be a no-brainer, as would HS2.

Just to clarify: that last HS2 should be 'Boris Island'.

MarqueeMark said:

MikeK said:

Good morning all:
For those interested, the UKIP conference is being covered by the Parliament channel. Starts about 10:00am this morning I believe.

A year ago, UKIP had such high hopes, with their two MP's set to become over a hundred (ahem...)....the ruins of the Conservative Party was to be their first great scalp on the road to office.

Now people just point and laugh. Where did it all go so wrong leader former leader leader Nigel Farage?

EU ref is their chance

Umm. Another vote winner.

Labour's vegan farming minister's bright idea: Treat meat eaters like smokers and start campaign to stop people eating it

Kerry McCarthy speaking to a vegan magazine when shared views on meat
'Really believes' that it should be 'treated in exactly same way as tobacco'
She'd like to see campaigns actively encouraging meat eaters to give it up
Says farmers have to live by and 'risk dying by' movements in the market

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3247000/Labour-s-vegan-farming-minister-s-bright-idea-Treat-meat-eaters-like-smokers-start-campaign-stop-people-eating-it.html#ixzz3mdqkHKgR
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

HurstLlama said:

Mr. J., I fully agree on the short-termism of senior people in the UK. It is understandable because people will think in terms of their reward cycle. Someone on a rolling short term contract in which success is measured in terms of share price will concentrate on boosting share price in the short term and if the company ceases to exist in ten years it is not a problem to them. It is however a mindset which the UK needs to break.

The answer I think lies in a drastic reform of the rules of corporate ownership and governance. However to get to that one would first need to find politicians who are prepared to think about the long term in the first place. The Conservative Party is currently in a position whereby they might, might, be in a position to think in terms beyond the next election - certainly as far out as 2025. Unfortunately the lead would have to come from George Osborne and he doesn't seem to have a clue.

P.S. If we were really serious about HS2 then we wouldn't be thinking of terminating the trains miles from the centre of London and taking 16 years to re-develop half of Euston Station. Really that project is now just descending into farce. Its business case is in tatters and none of the promised benefits, save maybe that of more capacity, are likely to be delivered. Rather than inviting the Chinese to come and build it Osborne would be better putting it out of its misery.

That last paragraph illustrates the problem. I know you don't like HS2. Yet there is a problem that is well defined, and is becoming more obvious as time continues and traffic levels continue to climb.

You are taking reports from a notoriously anti-HS2 journalist and giving them currency. Yet you do not have a single alternative to the project which, if you believe the need is there (*), is vital. Instead you complain about the time it will take to develop.

That's short-termist thinking writ large. If HS2 is not built, and nothing else done to solve the problems, our economy will be hurt.

I'd argue the same thing about Boris Island. We need to be thinking fifty years in the future, not twenty. Yet the BI argument is lost, and I'm reluctantly supporting Heathrow expansion, as even a kludge is better then further delays.

(*) Admittedly some do not. I think they're wrong.

HurstLlama said:

P.S. If we were really serious about HS2 then we wouldn't be thinking of terminating the trains miles from the centre of London and taking 16 years to re-develop half of Euston Station. Really that project is now just descending into farce. Its business case is in tatters and none of the promised benefits, save maybe that of more capacity, are likely to be delivered. Rather than inviting the Chinese to come and build it Osborne would be better putting it out of its misery.

Is it just me that thinks sixteen years to redevelop half of a station is a ludicrously long time. It should be possible to do in a fraction of that time.

Mr Jessop, Mr Llama, to be fair, it’s not only private industry, although I do agree with Mr L that majorityy shareholding by investment funds doesn’t seem to be "doing it" in the long term. When I was helping to spend NHS monies we had budgets which lasted one year only. Good, innovative ideas and practices would sometimes be abandoned in favour of the next “flavour of the month”!
It also applies to grants by charitable organisations and other grant-awarding bodies. When involved with CAB I used to compalin that many people were happy to give us an elephant, and it’s feed for a year, but no-one would give us the hay it needed the next year!

Miss Plato, if Labour want to stop me eating ham sandwiches they can piss off. I doubt that'll become official party policy, though.

JosiasJessop said:

That last paragraph illustrates the problem. I know you don't like HS2. Yet there is a problem that is well defined, and is becoming more obvious as time continues and traffic levels continue to climb.

You are taking reports from a notoriously anti-HS2 journalist and giving them currency. Yet you do not have a single alternative to the project which, if you believe the need is there (*), is vital. Instead you complain about the time it will take to develop.

That's short-termist thinking writ large. If HS2 is not built, and nothing else done to solve the problems, our economy will be hurt.

I'd argue the same thing about Boris Island. We need to be thinking fifty years in the future, not twenty. Yet the BI argument is lost, and I'm reluctantly supporting Heathrow expansion, as even a kludge is better then further delays.

(*) Admittedly some do not. I think they're wrong.

Alas, Mr. Jessop, I fear I phrased my comments on HS2 badly and as a result left you with a false impression. If we are going to do a North South high speed line (I don't think we should but that is another matter) then for heaven's sake let us do it properly. This faffing about with stations miles away from where people actually want to get to is a nonsense.

As for Boris Island, I agree with you - it should be built. There are, I think, two major stumbling blocks - the birds and the Dutch. The Cloggies can be bought off or just told to get stuffed. The birds I am not so sure about, they killed off the Maplin Sands plan forty years ago, and I don't see a way of getting around them this time. However we have some very clever people and some one will think of a solution if the will is there.

HurstLlama said:

JosiasJessop said:

That last paragraph illustrates the problem. I know you don't like HS2. Yet there is a problem that is well defined, and is becoming more obvious as time continues and traffic levels continue to climb.

You are taking reports from a notoriously anti-HS2 journalist and giving them currency. Yet you do not have a single alternative to the project which, if you believe the need is there (*), is vital. Instead you complain about the time it will take to develop.

That's short-termist thinking writ large. If HS2 is not built, and nothing else done to solve the problems, our economy will be hurt.

I'd argue the same thing about Boris Island. We need to be thinking fifty years in the future, not twenty. Yet the BI argument is lost, and I'm reluctantly supporting Heathrow expansion, as even a kludge is better then further delays.

(*) Admittedly some do not. I think they're wrong.

Alas, Mr. Jessop, I fear I phrased my comments on HS2 badly and as a result left you with a false impression. If we are going to do a North South high speed line (I don't think we should but that is another matter) then for heaven's sake let us do it properly. This faffing about with stations miles away from where people actually want to get to is a nonsense.

As for Boris Island, I agree with you - it should be built. There are, I think, two major stumbling blocks - the birds and the Dutch. The Cloggies can be bought off or just told to get stuffed. The birds I am not so sure about, they killed off the Maplin Sands plan forty years ago, and I don't see a way of getting around them this time. However we have some very clever people and some one will think of a solution if the will is there.

I don’t think the Dutch care much one way or the other, apart from the fact that another substantial airport in the area would be in competition with Schipol. Howevfer, as presumably, LHR would be reduced in size and scope the net effect on Schipol would be small.

There’s also the nagging problem of the sunken ammunition ship off Sheerness.

Good conference speech from what I could work out by Farron yesterday, the Lib Dems are about as relevant as the Greens on current polling though.

Bonkers from Kerry McCarthy regarding farming, though I do share her concerns on the CAP - and the morning news was poor optics for George Osborne with the China/Steel juxtaposition.

I can feel my inner @AlanBrooke coming out this morning

HurstLlama said:

JosiasJessop said:

That last paragraph illustrates the problem. I know you don't like HS2. Yet there is a problem that is well defined, and is becoming more obvious as time continues and traffic levels continue to climb.

You are taking reports from a notoriously anti-HS2 journalist and giving them currency. Yet you do not have a single alternative to the project which, if you believe the need is there (*), is vital. Instead you complain about the time it will take to develop.

That's short-termist thinking writ large. If HS2 is not built, and nothing else done to solve the problems, our economy will be hurt.

I'd argue the same thing about Boris Island. We need to be thinking fifty years in the future, not twenty. Yet the BI argument is lost, and I'm reluctantly supporting Heathrow expansion, as even a kludge is better then further delays.

(*) Admittedly some do not. I think they're wrong.

Alas, Mr. Jessop, I fear I phrased my comments on HS2 badly and as a result left you with a false impression. If we are going to do a North South high speed line (I don't think we should but that is another matter) then for heaven's sake let us do it properly. This faffing about with stations miles away from where people actually want to get to is a nonsense.

As for Boris Island, I agree with you - it should be built. There are, I think, two major stumbling blocks - the birds and the Dutch. The Cloggies can be bought off or just told to get stuffed. The birds I am not so sure about, they killed off the Maplin Sands plan forty years ago, and I don't see a way of getting around them this time. However we have some very clever people and some one will think of a solution if the will is there.

Fair enough on both points.

As a side issue, I would point out that many early railway lines went between end-points passing through relatively rural areas and development followed. The GWR went from London to Bristol avoiding most settlements aside from Bath and Reading. Swindon was built on the back of the railways. Likewise, Derby's station is a mile from the historic centre, yet the city's centre of gravity moved towards the railway, especially in recent years. The same could be said for Cambridge.

Personally, I would take HS2 through Derby and Sheffield, but I can understand why they made the decisions they did (the Derby decision in particular sounds particularly close).

If you want to maximise rewards from development, you have to put the lines in area where they can be developed. Old Oak Common, Toton and even Meadowhall offer massive redevelopment opportunities, and that improves the business case.

NickPalmer said:

Clinton seems to have re-established a clear lead in Iowa, even though her national figures aren't overwhelming - it's hard to see Sanders really overtaking her. Biden is another matter - if he runs, he'll get an initial boost, but also come under more scrutiny again. My impression FWIW is that he'd have a good shot but fall short unless Clinton's effort imploded.

On the GOP side, TimT is of course right that most of us see the GOP field (the agreeable Kasich excepted) as a bit weird for political/irreligious reasons. Some of them - Rubio, for instance - look genuinely solid candidates, careful in what they say but forceful all the same. Some do look out of their depth, though - with the best will in the world, Carson seemed to me in the first debate completely at sea, yet he's up there among the leaders. There seems to be a risk that they'll pick a weak candidate just because he has a spurt singling him or her out as the "stop Trump" candidate.

Rubio is a credible serious and articulate candidate IMHO, who should also be conservative enough to mobilise the Republican base but pragmatic enough to also win over floaters.

I don't buy the whole 'he has no chance because he's hispanic' lark, but I am surprised he hasn't got more traction in the race so far.

I'm still backing him. I think he could edge out over Clinton.

JosiasJessop said:

HurstLlama said:

JosiasJessop said:

That last paragraph illustrates the problem. I know you don't like HS2. Yet there is a problem that is well defined, and is becoming more obvious as time continues and traffic levels continue to climb.

You are taking reports from a notoriously anti-HS2 journalist and giving them currency. Yet you do not have a single alternative to the project which, if you believe the need is there (*), is vital. Instead you complain about the time it will take to develop.

That's short-termist thinking writ large. If HS2 is not built, and nothing else done to solve the problems, our economy will be hurt.

I'd argue the same thing about Boris Island. We need to be thinking fifty years in the future, not twenty. Yet the BI argument is lost, and I'm reluctantly supporting Heathrow expansion, as even a kludge is better then further delays.

(*) Admittedly some do not. I think they're wrong.

Alas, Mr. Jessop, I fear I phrased my comments on HS2 badly and as a result left you with a false impression. If we are going to do a North South high speed line (I don't think we should but that is another matter) then for heaven's sake let us do it properly. This faffing about with stations miles away from where people actually want to get to is a nonsense.

As for Boris Island, I agree with you - it should be built. There are, I think, two major stumbling blocks - the birds and the Dutch. The Cloggies can be bought off or just told to get stuffed. The birds I am not so sure about, they killed off the Maplin Sands plan forty years ago, and I don't see a way of getting around them this time. However we have some very clever people and some one will think of a solution if the will is there.

Fair enough on both points.

As a side issue, I would point out that many early railway lines went between end-points passing through relatively rural areas and development followed. The GWR went from London to Bristol avoiding most settlements aside from Bath and Reading. Swindon was built on the back of the railways. Likewise, Derby's station is a mile from the historic centre, yet the city's centre of gravity moved towards the railway, especially in recent years. The same could be said for Cambridge.

Personally, I would take HS2 through Derby and Sheffield, but I can understand why they made the decisions they did (the Derby decision in particular sounds particularly close).

If you want to maximise rewards from development, you have to put the lines in area where they can be developed. Old Oak Common, Toton and even Meadowhall offer massive redevelopment opportunities, and that improves the business case.

I’m not an expert on Victorian railway building but wasn’t there opposition to lines from both landowners and towns on grounds of noise? Hence the sometimes bizarre routes.

Theuniondivvie said:

JackW said:

redcliffe62 said:

I think the revelation that the Queen did indeed interfere in the referendum at the behest of Cameron is a major story even if it does not resonate within the M25. Trying to define how far she could go by leaks which were then reported as royal sources in purdah period broke many rules.
Queen Elizabeth the First of Britain is clearly Queen Elizabeth the Second of England at heart. Fair enough, but do not complain when royalty despite Witchell's fawnings continues to be as popular as a fart in a spacesuit north of the Tweed.

The Queen is also Elizabeth II as the higher regnal number is used from the former kingdoms of England and Scotland.

What chance an heir to the throne being named James, David, or indeed Malcolm? Miniscule to f.all. Can't have the Jocks considering they have any sort of primacy.

David Cameron sounds quite Scottish to me. Gordon Brown was Scottish. Tony Blair also had a Scottish name.

So the last three UK Prime Ministers have either been Scottish or have Scottish ancestry. Not bad for a nation that has <10% of the population of the UK IMHO.

Scotland punches above its weight in the Union and, through it, on the global stage too.

OldKingCole said:

HurstLlama said:

JosiasJessop said:

That last paragraph illustrates the problem. I know you don't like HS2. Yet there is a problem that is well defined, and is becoming more obvious as time continues and traffic levels continue to climb.

You are taking reports from a notoriously anti-HS2 journalist and giving them currency. Yet you do not have a single alternative to the project which, if you believe the need is there (*), is vital. Instead you complain about the time it will take to develop.

That's short-termist thinking writ large. If HS2 is not built, and nothing else done to solve the problems, our economy will be hurt.

I'd argue the same thing about Boris Island. We need to be thinking fifty years in the future, not twenty. Yet the BI argument is lost, and I'm reluctantly supporting Heathrow expansion, as even a kludge is better then further delays.

(*) Admittedly some do not. I think they're wrong.

Alas, Mr. Jessop, I fear I phrased my comments on HS2 badly and as a result left you with a false impression. If we are going to do a North South high speed line (I don't think we should but that is another matter) then for heaven's sake let us do it properly. This faffing about with stations miles away from where people actually want to get to is a nonsense.

As for Boris Island, I agree with you - it should be built. There are, I think, two major stumbling blocks - the birds and the Dutch. The Cloggies can be bought off or just told to get stuffed. The birds I am not so sure about, they killed off the Maplin Sands plan forty years ago, and I don't see a way of getting around them this time. However we have some very clever people and some one will think of a solution if the will is there.

I don’t think the Dutch care much one way or the other, apart from the fact that another substantial airport in the area would be in competition with Schipol. Howevfer, as presumably, LHR would be reduced in size and scope the net effect on Schipol would be small.

There’s also the nagging problem of the sunken ammunition ship off Sheerness.

Mr. Cole, I think the problem with the Dutch is not competition so much as conflicting air-space. As I understand it a Boris Island will, due to prevailing winds, need aeroplanes to come in from the East where they will be in the same space as those taking off from Schipol.

The ammo ship is a problem, but one which money will solve and with the amount that Boris Island will cost there will be sufficient funds available.

Today Programme was a bit of a shambles this morning. First up, they couldn't get their heads around the difference between Chinese money being invested in the UK and Chinese contractors winning contracts from the UK. Then they got all mixed up on the small matter of 1,200 deaths in Qatar, resulting in their interviewee walking out.

F1: not news, but worth repeating given the engine chatter: Manor may well have a Mercedes engine next year. Could have the chance for snaffling the odd points, if that's the case.

OldKingCole said:

I’m not an expert on Victorian railway building but wasn’t there opposition to lines from both landowners and towns on grounds of noise? Hence the sometimes bizarre routes.

The "Frighten the horses" argument.

It was more complex than that. If I recall correctly, some landowners *wanted* the railways across their land, especially if they had invested in the minerals industry, and were willing to invest in the companies to influence the route in their favour. As an example, some landowners on the planned route of the first modern railway, the Stockton and Darlington, were in favour, whilst others caused expensive diversions.

Other objections on later railways were based in genuine concerns, or sometimes simply because they wanted the company to pay more for their land.

In extreme cases such as the Duke of Rutland at Haddon Hall in Derbyshire, the railway was put in a very shallow cut-and-cover tunnel so it could not be seen from the hall, at the cost of the lives of several construction workers.

The railway manias were truly mad occasions, and utterly fascinating from a historical perspective, especially as the same sort of thing seems to occur every couple of decades (e.g. the Dot-com bubble).

OldKingCole said:

JosiasJessop said:

OldKingCole said:

HurstLlama said:

JosiasJessop said:

That last paragraph illustrates the problem. I know you don't like HS2. Yet there is a problem that is well defined, and is becoming more obvious as time continues and traffic levels continue to climb.

You are taking reports from a notoriously anti-HS2 journalist and giving them currency. Yet you do not have a single alternative to the project which, if you believe the need is there (*), is vital. Instead you complain about the time it will take to develop.

That's short-termist thinking writ large. If HS2 is not built, and nothing else done to solve the problems, our economy will be hurt.

I'd argue the same thing about Boris Island. We need to be thinking fifty years in the future, not twenty. Yet the BI argument is lost, and I'm reluctantly supporting Heathrow expansion, as even a kludge is better then further delays.

(*) Admittedly some do not. I think they're wrong.

Alas, Mr. Jessop, I fear I phrased my comments on HS2 badly and as a result left you with a false impression. If we are going to do a North South high speed line (I don't think we should but that is another matter) then for heaven's sake let us do it properly. This faffing about with stations miles away from where people actually want to get to is a nonsense.

As for Boris Island, I agree with you - it should be built. There are, I think, two major stumbling blocks - the birds and the Dutch. The Cloggies can be bought off or just told to get stuffed. The birds I am not so sure about, they killed off the Maplin Sands plan forty years ago, and I don't see a way of getting around them this time. However we have some very clever people and some one will think of a solution if the will is there.

I don’t think the Dutch care much one way or the other, apart from the fact that another substantial airport in the area would be in competition with Schipol. Howevfer, as presumably, LHR would be reduced in size and scope the net effect on Schipol would be small.

There’s also the nagging problem of the sunken ammunition ship off Sheerness.

Something should have been done about the Montgomery decades ago. The longer we leave it, the more expensive it will get, and potentially the more danger there is.

Perfectly true, but what? I lived in the area for many years and the general understanding was that if you left it alone nothing might happen but if you tried to do anything about it something would!

Like asbestos ?

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

JackW said:

redcliffe62 said:

I think the revelation that the Queen did indeed interfere in the referendum at the behest of Cameron is a major story even if it does not resonate within the M25. Trying to define how far she could go by leaks which were then reported as royal sources in purdah period broke many rules.
Queen Elizabeth the First of Britain is clearly Queen Elizabeth the Second of England at heart. Fair enough, but do not complain when royalty despite Witchell's fawnings continues to be as popular as a fart in a spacesuit north of the Tweed.

The Queen is also Elizabeth II as the higher regnal number is used from the former kingdoms of England and Scotland.

What chance an heir to the throne being named James, David, or indeed Malcolm? Miniscule to f.all. Can't have the Jocks considering they have any sort of primacy.

David Cameron sounds quite Scottish to me. Gordon Brown was Scottish. Tony Blair also had a Scottish name.

So the last three UK Prime Ministers have either been Scottish or have Scottish ancestry. Not bad for a nation that has <10% of the population of the UK IMHO.

Scotland punches above its weight in the Union and, through it, on the global stage too.</p>

Hey, I was just dipping into the dynasty worship society (is there an initiation ritual, I wonder?) so beloved of your sort. The names/origins of elected politicians is neither here nor there.

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

JackW said:

redcliffe62 said:

I think the revelation that the Queen did indeed interfere in the referendum at the behest of Cameron is a major story even if it does not resonate within the M25. Trying to define how far she could go by leaks which were then reported as royal sources in purdah period broke many rules.
Queen Elizabeth the First of Britain is clearly Queen Elizabeth the Second of England at heart. Fair enough, but do not complain when royalty despite Witchell's fawnings continues to be as popular as a fart in a spacesuit north of the Tweed.

The Queen is also Elizabeth II as the higher regnal number is used from the former kingdoms of England and Scotland.

What chance an heir to the throne being named James, David, or indeed Malcolm? Miniscule to f.all. Can't have the Jocks considering they have any sort of primacy.

David Cameron sounds quite Scottish to me. Gordon Brown was Scottish. Tony Blair also had a Scottish name.

So the last three UK Prime Ministers have either been Scottish or have Scottish ancestry. Not bad for a nation that has <10% of the population of the UK IMHO.

Scotland punches above its weight in the Union and, through it, on the global stage too.</p>

Blair was born in Scotland and educated in Scotland.

He's as Scottish as a ginger wig and kilts.

Casino_Royale said:

NickPalmer said:

Clinton seems to have re-established a clear lead in Iowa, even though her national figures aren't overwhelming - it's hard to see Sanders really overtaking her. Biden is another matter - if he runs, he'll get an initial boost, but also come under more scrutiny again. My impression FWIW is that he'd have a good shot but fall short unless Clinton's effort imploded.

On the GOP side, TimT is of course right that most of us see the GOP field (the agreeable Kasich excepted) as a bit weird for political/irreligious reasons. Some of them - Rubio, for instance - look genuinely solid candidates, careful in what they say but forceful all the same. Some do look out of their depth, though - with the best will in the world, Carson seemed to me in the first debate completely at sea, yet he's up there among the leaders. There seems to be a risk that they'll pick a weak candidate just because he has a spurt singling him or her out as the "stop Trump" candidate.

Rubio is a credible serious and articulate candidate IMHO, who should also be conservative enough to mobilise the Republican base but pragmatic enough to also win over floaters.

I don't buy the whole 'he has no chance because he's hispanic' lark, but I am surprised he hasn't got more traction in the race so far.

I'm still backing him. I think he could edge out over Clinton.

Rubio is from Florida so might need Bush to drop out, as the latter seems to have sewn up the local establishment. Cruz is also in the field, so being Hispanic is not a USP at this stage.

Rubio does look a bit young for a presidential candidate (and I mean he looks younger than his years). He might be a credible VP pick if a northern candidate wins.

Pulpstar said:

OldKingCole said:

JosiasJessop said:

OldKingCole said:

HurstLlama said:

JosiasJessop said:

That last paragraph illustrates the problem. I know you don't like HS2. Yet there is a problem that is well defined, and is becoming more obvious as time continues and traffic levels continue to climb.

You are taking reports from a notoriously anti-HS2 journalist and giving them currency. Yet you do not have a single alternative to the project which, if you believe the need is there (*), is vital. Instead you complain about the time it will take to develop.

That's short-termist thinking writ large. If HS2 is not built, and nothing else done to solve the problems, our economy will be hurt.

I'd argue the same thing about Boris Island. We need to be thinking fifty years in the future, not twenty. Yet the BI argument is lost, and I'm reluctantly supporting Heathrow expansion, as even a kludge is better then further delays.

(*) Admittedly some do not. I think they're wrong.

Alas, Mr. Jessop, I fear I phrased my comments on HS2 badly and as a result left you with a false impression. If we are going to do a North South high speed line (I don't think we should but that is another matter) then for heaven's sake let us do it properly. This faffing about with stations miles away from where people actually want to get to is a nonsense.

As for Boris Island, I agree with you - it should be built. There are, I think, two major stumbling blocks - the birds and the Dutch. The Cloggies can be bought off or just told to get stuffed. The birds I am not so sure about, they killed off the Maplin Sands plan forty years ago, and I don't see a way of getting around them this time. However we have some very clever people and some one will think of a solution if the will is there.

I don’t think the Dutch care much one way or the other, apart from the fact that another substantial airport in the area would be in competition with Schipol. Howevfer, as presumably, LHR would be reduced in size and scope the net effect on Schipol would be small.

There’s also the nagging problem of the sunken ammunition ship off Sheerness.

Something should have been done about the Montgomery decades ago. The longer we leave it, the more expensive it will get, and potentially the more danger there is.

Perfectly true, but what? I lived in the area for many years and the general understanding was that if you left it alone nothing might happen but if you tried to do anything about it something would!

Like asbestos ?

As a metter of fact, that’s often the case with buildings. You don’t try and do anything with “enclosed” asbestos until it isn’t going to be enclosed any longer.

Theuniondivvie said:

david_herdson said:

Theuniondivvie said:

JackW said:

redcliffe62 said:

I think the revelation that the Queen did indeed interfere in the referendum at the behest of Cameron is a major story even if it does not resonate within the M25. Trying to define how far she could go by leaks which were then reported as royal sources in purdah period broke many rules.
Queen Elizabeth the First of Britain is clearly Queen Elizabeth the Second of England at heart. Fair enough, but do not complain when royalty despite Witchell's fawnings continues to be as popular as a fart in a spacesuit north of the Tweed.

The Queen is also Elizabeth II as the higher regnal number is used from the former kingdoms of England and Scotland.

What chance an heir to the throne being named James, David, or indeed Malcolm? Miniscule to f.all. Can't have the Jocks considering they have any sort of primacy.

Edward VIII was known as 'David' prior to his accession. There's no reason why he couldn't have chosen it as his regnal name.

Prince George - who stands an excellent chance of becoming king - also has Alexander as one of his names should he opt not to go with the thoroughly boring first name he's been given (and the only realistic alternative given that Louis is probably out of bounds).

So, form versus hypothetical? As a bettor which would you go with?
The prospect of Eck IV is entertaining though.

Hypothetical is all we have to go on; there is no form - the convention was established after the current queen became monarch so there've been no instances since it came into being.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

JackW said:

redcliffe62 said:

I think the revelation that the Queen did indeed interfere in the referendum at the behest of Cameron is a major story even if it does not resonate within the M25. Trying to define how far she could go by leaks which were then reported as royal sources in purdah period broke many rules.
Queen Elizabeth the First of Britain is clearly Queen Elizabeth the Second of England at heart. Fair enough, but do not complain when royalty despite Witchell's fawnings continues to be as popular as a fart in a spacesuit north of the Tweed.

The Queen is also Elizabeth II as the higher regnal number is used from the former kingdoms of England and Scotland.

What chance an heir to the throne being named James, David, or indeed Malcolm? Miniscule to f.all. Can't have the Jocks considering they have any sort of primacy.

David Cameron sounds quite Scottish to me. Gordon Brown was Scottish. Tony Blair also had a Scottish name.

So the last three UK Prime Ministers have either been Scottish or have Scottish ancestry. Not bad for a nation that has <10% of the population of the UK IMHO.

Scotland punches above its weight in the Union and, through it, on the global stage too.</p>

Blair was born in Scotland and educated in Scotland.

He's as Scottish as a ginger wig and kilts.

What the nats object to is any high-profile aspect or symbol of the British state. They particularly dislike icons of it that can stir positive emotions in Scots because they compete for the affections and loyalties of ordinary Scots against the saltire and their exalted leader on earth - Nicola Sturgeon. May peace be upon her.

That's why they get so angry and rude about it.

Theuniondivvie said:

david_herdson said:

Theuniondivvie said:

JackW said:

redcliffe62 said:

I think the revelation that the Queen did indeed interfere in the referendum at the behest of Cameron is a major story even if it does not resonate within the M25. Trying to define how far she could go by leaks which were then reported as royal sources in purdah period broke many rules.
Queen Elizabeth the First of Britain is clearly Queen Elizabeth the Second of England at heart. Fair enough, but do not complain when royalty despite Witchell's fawnings continues to be as popular as a fart in a spacesuit north of the Tweed.

The Queen is also Elizabeth II as the higher regnal number is used from the former kingdoms of England and Scotland.

What chance an heir to the throne being named James, David, or indeed Malcolm? Miniscule to f.all. Can't have the Jocks considering they have any sort of primacy.

Edward VIII was known as 'David' prior to his accession. There's no reason why he couldn't have chosen it as his regnal name.

Prince George - who stands an excellent chance of becoming king - also has Alexander as one of his names should he opt not to go with the thoroughly boring first name he's been given (and the only realistic alternative given that Louis is probably out of bounds).

So, form versus hypothetical? As a bettor which would you go with?
The prospect of Eck IV is entertaining though.

What’s wrong with Anglicising it to Lewis, which means, according to something or other on the internet “renowned warrior”. Not that, probably, by the time he comes to the throne I’ll be in a position to care one way or the other!

david_herdson said:

Theuniondivvie said:

david_herdson said:

Theuniondivvie said:

JackW said:

redcliffe62 said:

I think the revelation that the Queen did indeed interfere in the referendum at the behest of Cameron is a major story even if it does not resonate within the M25. Trying to define how far she could go by leaks which were then reported as royal sources in purdah period broke many rules.
Queen Elizabeth the First of Britain is clearly Queen Elizabeth the Second of England at heart. Fair enough, but do not complain when royalty despite Witchell's fawnings continues to be as popular as a fart in a spacesuit north of the Tweed.

The Queen is also Elizabeth II as the higher regnal number is used from the former kingdoms of England and Scotland.

What chance an heir to the throne being named James, David, or indeed Malcolm? Miniscule to f.all. Can't have the Jocks considering they have any sort of primacy.

Edward VIII was known as 'David' prior to his accession. There's no reason why he couldn't have chosen it as his regnal name.

Prince George - who stands an excellent chance of becoming king - also has Alexander as one of his names should he opt not to go with the thoroughly boring first name he's been given (and the only realistic alternative given that Louis is probably out of bounds).

So, form versus hypothetical? As a bettor which would you go with?
The prospect of Eck IV is entertaining though.

Hypothetical is all we have to go on; there is no form - the convention was established after the current queen became monarch so there've been no instances since it came into being.

You mentioned Edward VIII..
Were you suggesting hypothetically that he might have been David I or David III?

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

JackW said:

redcliffe62 said:

I think the revelation that the Queen did indeed interfere in the referendum at the behest of Cameron is a major story even if it does not resonate within the M25. Trying to define how far she could go by leaks which were then reported as royal sources in purdah period broke many rules.
Queen Elizabeth the First of Britain is clearly Queen Elizabeth the Second of England at heart. Fair enough, but do not complain when royalty despite Witchell's fawnings continues to be as popular as a fart in a spacesuit north of the Tweed.

The Queen is also Elizabeth II as the higher regnal number is used from the former kingdoms of England and Scotland.

What chance an heir to the throne being named James, David, or indeed Malcolm? Miniscule to f.all. Can't have the Jocks considering they have any sort of primacy.

David Cameron sounds quite Scottish to me. Gordon Brown was Scottish. Tony Blair also had a Scottish name.

So the last three UK Prime Ministers have either been Scottish or have Scottish ancestry. Not bad for a nation that has <10% of the population of the UK IMHO.

Scotland punches above its weight in the Union and, through it, on the global stage too.</p>

Hey, I was just dipping into the dynasty worship society (is there an initiation ritual, I wonder?) so beloved of your sort. The names/origins of elected politicians is neither here nor there.

Hey, I was just dipping into the contrived grievances and victimhood so beloved of your sort.

You do also realise HMQ is from a Scottish dynasty and is half-Scottish herself, with a Scottish mother, don't you?

Oh dear, I fear you're working yourself up to a 'dickstain'.

Nah. I've got a long way to go until I reach your level.

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

JackW said:

redcliffe62 said:

I think the revelation that the Queen did indeed interfere in the referendum at the behest of Cameron is a major story even if it does not resonate within the M25. Trying to define how far she could go by leaks which were then reported as royal sources in purdah period broke many rules.
Queen Elizabeth the First of Britain is clearly Queen Elizabeth the Second of England at heart. Fair enough, but do not complain when royalty despite Witchell's fawnings continues to be as popular as a fart in a spacesuit north of the Tweed.

The Queen is also Elizabeth II as the higher regnal number is used from the former kingdoms of England and Scotland.

What chance an heir to the throne being named James, David, or indeed Malcolm? Miniscule to f.all. Can't have the Jocks considering they have any sort of primacy.

David Cameron sounds quite Scottish to me. Gordon Brown was Scottish. Tony Blair also had a Scottish name.

So the last three UK Prime Ministers have either been Scottish or have Scottish ancestry. Not bad for a nation that has <10% of the population of the UK IMHO.

Scotland punches above its weight in the Union and, through it, on the global stage too.</p>

Blair was born in Scotland and educated in Scotland.

He's as Scottish as a ginger wig and kilts.

What the nats object to is any high-profile aspect or symbol of the British state. They particularly dislike icons of it that can stir positive emotions in Scots because they compete for the affections and loyalties of ordinary Scots against the saltire and their exalted leader on earth - Nicola Sturgeon. May peace be upon her.

That's why they get so angry and rude about it.

Mike and I have made it PB policy that all future Scotland threads will use this picture going forward

http://dailym.ai/1OU7T4c

or maybe this

http://bit.ly/1L7NZCT

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

If I were about to become King of this country, I'd give serious thought Longshanks to as my regnal name.

That said the name should be something that reflects the country, so probably Mohammed I.

Trolling the SNP and UKIP in the same post? Quite an achievement!

I'm about to go to a mosque for the first time in ages, I'm allowed to have some fun before I have to do penance.

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

JackW said:

redcliffe62 said:

I think the revelation that the Queen did indeed interfere in the referendum at the behest of Cameron is a major story even if it does not resonate within the M25. Trying to define how far she could go by leaks which were then reported as royal sources in purdah period broke many rules.
Queen Elizabeth the First of Britain is clearly Queen Elizabeth the Second of England at heart. Fair enough, but do not complain when royalty despite Witchell's fawnings continues to be as popular as a fart in a spacesuit north of the Tweed.

The Queen is also Elizabeth II as the higher regnal number is used from the former kingdoms of England and Scotland.

What chance an heir to the throne being named James, David, or indeed Malcolm? Miniscule to f.all. Can't have the Jocks considering they have any sort of primacy.

David Cameron sounds quite Scottish to me. Gordon Brown was Scottish. Tony Blair also had a Scottish name.

So the last three UK Prime Ministers have either been Scottish or have Scottish ancestry. Not bad for a nation that has <10% of the population of the UK IMHO.

Scotland punches above its weight in the Union and, through it, on the global stage too.</p>

Hey, I was just dipping into the dynasty worship society (is there an initiation ritual, I wonder?) so beloved of your sort. The names/origins of elected politicians is neither here nor there.

Hey, I was just dipping into the contrived grievances and victimhood so beloved of your sort.

You do also realise HMQ is from a Scottish dynasty and is half-Scottish herself, with a Scottish mother, don't you?

Oh dear, I fear you're working yourself up to a 'dickstain'.

Nah. I've got a long way to go until I reach your level.

Very true. If you try & try, one day you might not be a whiny hypocrite.

Casino - according tot he latest extracts Cameron's fondness for Scotland stretches as far as hunting and grouse moors. Nothing it would appear for the Scottish people themselves. As for Blair I've never got any sense he had much love of the place. He offered devolution because he was afraid of the SNP and thought independence could be bought off.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

If I were about to become King of this country, I'd give serious thought Longshanks to as my regnal name.

That said the name should be something that reflects the country, so probably Mohammed I.

Trolling the SNP and UKIP in the same post? Quite an achievement!

I'm about to go to a mosque for the first time in ages, I'm allowed to have some fun before I have to do penance.

I thought you just had to pray in the prescribed form. According to guy who lectured to my WEA earlier this tear there’s no requirment to attend the mosque; iyt’s just desirable. Not like the CoE and Easter.

OldKingCole said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

If I were about to become King of this country, I'd give serious thought Longshanks to as my regnal name.

That said the name should be something that reflects the country, so probably Mohammed I.

Trolling the SNP and UKIP in the same post? Quite an achievement!

I'm about to go to a mosque for the first time in ages, I'm allowed to have some fun before I have to do penance.

I thought you just had to pray in the prescribed form. According to guy who lectured to my WEA earlier this tear there’s no requirment to attend the mosque; iyt’s just desirable. Not like the CoE and Easter.

It's Eid today so I have to make an appearance.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

JackW said:

redcliffe62 said:

I think the revelation that the Queen did indeed interfere in the referendum at the behest of Cameron is a major story even if it does not resonate within the M25. Trying to define how far she could go by leaks which were then reported as royal sources in purdah period broke many rules.
Queen Elizabeth the First of Britain is clearly Queen Elizabeth the Second of England at heart. Fair enough, but do not complain when royalty despite Witchell's fawnings continues to be as popular as a fart in a spacesuit north of the Tweed.

The Queen is also Elizabeth II as the higher regnal number is used from the former kingdoms of England and Scotland.

What chance an heir to the throne being named James, David, or indeed Malcolm? Miniscule to f.all. Can't have the Jocks considering they have any sort of primacy.

David Cameron sounds quite Scottish to me. Gordon Brown was Scottish. Tony Blair also had a Scottish name.

So the last three UK Prime Ministers have either been Scottish or have Scottish ancestry. Not bad for a nation that has <10% of the population of the UK IMHO.

Scotland punches above its weight in the Union and, through it, on the global stage too.</p>

Blair was born in Scotland and educated in Scotland.

He's as Scottish as a ginger wig and kilts.

What the nats object to is any high-profile aspect or symbol of the British state. They particularly dislike icons of it that can stir positive emotions in Scots because they compete for the affections and loyalties of ordinary Scots against the saltire and their exalted leader on earth - Nicola Sturgeon. May peace be upon her.

That's why they get so angry and rude about it.

Mike and I have made it PB policy that all future Scotland threads will use this picture going forward

http://dailym.ai/1OU7T4c

or maybe this

http://bit.ly/1L7NZCT

Not this?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Field_Turnips_-_geograph.org.uk_-_665279.jpg

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

JackW said:

redcliffe62 said:

I think the revelation that the Queen did indeed interfere in the referendum at the behest of Cameron is a major story even if it does not resonate within the M25. Trying to define how far she could go by leaks which were then reported as royal sources in purdah period broke many rules.
Queen Elizabeth the First of Britain is clearly Queen Elizabeth the Second of England at heart. Fair enough, but do not complain when royalty despite Witchell's fawnings continues to be as popular as a fart in a spacesuit north of the Tweed.

The Queen is also Elizabeth II as the higher regnal number is used from the former kingdoms of England and Scotland.

What chance an heir to the throne being named James, David, or indeed Malcolm? Miniscule to f.all. Can't have the Jocks considering they have any sort of primacy.

David Cameron sounds quite Scottish to me. Gordon Brown was Scottish. Tony Blair also had a Scottish name.

So the last three UK Prime Ministers have either been Scottish or have Scottish ancestry. Not bad for a nation that has <10% of the population of the UK IMHO.

Scotland punches above its weight in the Union and, through it, on the global stage too.</p>

Hey, I was just dipping into the dynasty worship society (is there an initiation ritual, I wonder?) so beloved of your sort. The names/origins of elected politicians is neither here nor there.

Hey, I was just dipping into the contrived grievances and victimhood so beloved of your sort.

You do also realise HMQ is from a Scottish dynasty and is half-Scottish herself, with a Scottish mother, don't you?

Oh dear, I fear you're working yourself up to a 'dickstain'.

Nah. I've got a long way to go until I reach your level.

Very true. If you try & try, one day you might not be a whiny hypocrite.

Just 'whiny' then?