I may revisit my blogpost from the time. I think I said I couldn't see the LDs going below 17 seats.
But, oh boy, did they. My theory is that incumbency and local factors became irrelevant and they basically were subject to UNS the same way as everyone else.
The bottom line was, there is simply no way a party can lose two-thirds of its vote, yet magically not drop at all in the seats they held. Forget all the talk of incumbency votes and whatnot - it just wasn't arithmetically possible unless the Lib Dems were to drop into minus scores in about half of seats or something.
I factored that in. In fact, I ran a model back in April that applied a UNS to the LD voteshare in their existing seats based on them only holding onto 65% of their 2010 votes.
On that model they ended up with... *drumroll*... eight seats.
I produced a model showing seat numbers for every nationwide vote share. At the 8% mark it had nine seats.
Personally, I thought the LibDems would get 10.0-10.5%, and would end up at 13-14 seats. The 4-1 on 11-20 therefore looked like an absolute no-brainer.
The odds on 0-20 can't have been that much shorter?
I had a small amount on 0-10 at 16/1, which meant I didn't lose on my seat band betting.
But, I should have been thousands of pounds richer.
I may revisit my blogpost from the time. I think I said I couldn't see the LDs going below 17 seats.
But, oh boy, did they. My theory is that incumbency and local factors became irrelevant and they basically were subject to UNS the same way as everyone else.
The bottom line was, there is simply no way a party can lose two-thirds of its vote, yet magically not drop at all in the seats they held. Forget all the talk of incumbency votes and whatnot - it just wasn't arithmetically possible unless the Lib Dems were to drop into minus scores in about half of seats or something.
I factored that in. In fact, I ran a model back in April that applied a UNS to the LD voteshare in their existing seats based on them only holding onto 65% of their 2010 votes.
On that model they ended up with... *drumroll*... eight seats.
I produced a model showing seat numbers for every nationwide vote share. At the 8% mark it had nine seats.
Personally, I thought the LibDems would get 10.0-10.5%, and would end up at 13-14 seats. The 4-1 on 11-20 therefore looked like an absolute no-brainer.
The odds on 0-20 can't have been that much shorter?
I had a small amount on 0-10 at 16/1, which meant I didn't lose on my seat band betting.
But, I should have been thousands of pounds richer.
Yes, can imagine how you felt when the exit poll was published!
One further thought: that letter to Tusk is not the meat of the requests. It reads like a speech, not a diplomatic statement of position. It's for public consumption.
Yes. I suspect the renegotiation will be rather more than is in the letter.
It could hardly be less.
If we get less than what's in the letter, I can't see how Cameron can back Remain. If appearances are to be believed, he'll have already dropped CAP reform, an emergency brake on immigration (even at a high level), the social chapter opt-out, and treaty change. If he then went further, and watered down the benefits reduction for example, then he would really be in trouble with the electorate.
I suspect he doesn't care about immigration that much, although he knows he needs something major here for the campaign. However, I think any politician with his head on straight will know that we will need some change to the system to stop a federalising Eurozone from being able to do what it wants without agreement from others. If we don't get something practical to stop that, it would be ridiculous to back Remain. We'd be ruled by a foreign power without any blocking ability whatsoever.
The Rochdale MP was due to take part in a four-day fact-finding trip to China, but withdrew when he learned he would be flying economy class.
He told the Evening Standard a health condition, reportedly a back problem, would have made the 11-hour flight "unsuitable" for him.
Tory MP Richard Graham, who chairs the All Party Parliamentary China Group, who organised the trip, said the whole visit had to be cancelled after Mr Danczuk said he wouldn't go.
Apparently the Tories still required to match him, seems a waste of time.
I may revisit my blogpost from the time. I think I said I couldn't see the LDs going below 17 seats.
But, oh boy, did they. My theory is that incumbency and local factors became irrelevant and they basically were subject to UNS the same way as everyone else.
The bottom line was, there is simply no way a party can lose two-thirds of its vote, yet magically not drop at all in the seats they held. Forget all the talk of incumbency votes and whatnot - it just wasn't arithmetically possible unless the Lib Dems were to drop into minus scores in about half of seats or something.
I factored that in. In fact, I ran a model back in April that applied a UNS to the LD voteshare in their existing seats based on them only holding onto 65% of their 2010 votes.
On that model they ended up with... *drumroll*... eight seats.
I produced a model showing seat numbers for every nationwide vote share. At the 8% mark it had nine seats.
Personally, I thought the LibDems would get 10.0-10.5%, and would end up at 13-14 seats. The 4-1 on 11-20 therefore looked like an absolute no-brainer.
The odds on 0-20 can't have been that much shorter?
I had a small amount on 0-10 at 16/1, which meant I didn't lose on my seat band betting.
But, I should have been thousands of pounds richer.
I covered 10 or below too.
Frankly UNS is a pretty good predictor and personal votes largely a myth as far as I can see. More elaborate models may be technically more interesting but frankly seem overly complex.
Still, it shows what utter hypocrites the SNP are. You could not ask for a clearer example of a measure which doesn't affect Scotland one jot.
Of course it effects Scotland. Suppressing an aspect of the English economy gives Scotland a competitive advantage. I'm sure there is plenty of money made in cross-border Sunday trading. There is absolutely no reason for the SNP to vote to give that up.
England demanded Scotland stay and charge Scotland about £12bn a year to remain part of the Union. That gives Scotland every right to vote any way she wants over English laws.
The Rochdale MP was due to take part in a four-day fact-finding trip to China, but withdrew when he learned he would be flying economy class.
He told the Evening Standard a health condition, reportedly a back problem, would have made the 11-hour flight "unsuitable" for him.
Tory MP Richard Graham, who chairs the All Party Parliamentary China Group, who organised the trip, said the whole visit had to be cancelled after Mr Danczuk said he wouldn't go.
Apparently the Tories still required to match him, seems a waste of time.
I don't really think that's quite as ridiculous as this:
All ethnic minority groups in England are now, on average, more likely to go to university than their White British peers. This is the case even amongst groups who were previously under-represented in higher education, such as those of Black Caribbean ethnic origin, a relatively recent change.
I may revisit my blogpost from the time. I think I said I couldn't see the LDs going below 17 seats.
But, oh boy, did they. My theory is that incumbency and local factors became irrelevant and they basically were subject to UNS the same way as everyone else.
The bottom line was, there is simply no way a party can lose two-thirds of its vote, yet magically not drop at all in the seats they held. Forget all the talk of incumbency votes and whatnot - it just wasn't arithmetically possible unless the Lib Dems were to drop into minus scores in about half of seats or something.
I factored that in. In fact, I ran a model back in April that applied a UNS to the LD voteshare in their existing seats based on them only holding onto 65% of their 2010 votes.
On that model they ended up with... *drumroll*... eight seats.
I produced a model showing seat numbers for every nationwide vote share. At the 8% mark it had nine seats.
Personally, I thought the LibDems would get 10.0-10.5%, and would end up at 13-14 seats. The 4-1 on 11-20 therefore looked like an absolute no-brainer.
The odds on 0-20 can't have been that much shorter?
I had a small amount on 0-10 at 16/1, which meant I didn't lose on my seat band betting.
But, I should have been thousands of pounds richer.
I covered 10 or below too.
Frankly UNS is a pretty good predictor and personal votes largely a myth as far as I can see. More elaborate models may be technically more interesting but frankly seem overly complex.
UNS doesn't work when a party's support drops as much as the Lib Dems' support did. I wrote an explanation of this in the context of Scotland in April 2014:
I'd expect the renegotiation to be almost exactly what's in the letter. I expect that what's taken the time to this point has been finding the things to put in the letter that will be acceptable all round.
If I were David Cameron I'd be trying to make sure that he keeps as many wait-and-seers as possible on board at this stage because they won't be able to get off later. MPs who aren't making a noise now will find it hard later to explain why they didn't do so if David Cameron basically gets everything he's asked for now.
I think everyone on here is wrong about the renegotiation.
I don't think there will even be an outline in place by this time next year. I think that the negotitations with the other 27 countries will be significantly more tortuous than is expected. That being said, I think newly Eurosceptic countries (Finland, Denmark), plus places where there are Eurosceptic parties challenging (such as the Netherlands), mean we will probably have more support than people think.
My view is that it will require Germany emphasising firmly the financial consequences of our departure to some of the other countries to finally secure any kind of agreement.
And because every government in the EU seeks to be re-elected, and has their own interests they wish to protect, the end agreement could look absolutely nothing like the current plan.
In other words, the idea this is all "stage managed" is ridiculous.
It is also by no means impossible that we cannot secure the agreement of all 27 other EU states, and that therefore David Cameron backs exit.
I don't think there's any chance of that whatsoever. Cameron has made it very clear he bleeds blue and gold.
I may revisit my blogpost from the time. I think I said I couldn't see the LDs going below 17 seats.
But, oh boy, did they. My theory is that incumbency and local factors became irrelevant and they basically were subject to UNS the same way as everyone else.
The bottom line was, there is simply no way a party can lose two-thirds of its vote, yet magically not drop at all in the seats they held. Forget all the talk of incumbency votes and whatnot - it just wasn't arithmetically possible unless the Lib Dems were to drop into minus scores in about half of seats or something.
I factored that in. In fact, I ran a model back in April that applied a UNS to the LD voteshare in their existing seats based on them only holding onto 65% of their 2010 votes.
On that model they ended up with... *drumroll*... eight seats.
I produced a model showing seat numbers for every nationwide vote share. At the 8% mark it had nine seats.
Personally, I thought the LibDems would get 10.0-10.5%, and would end up at 13-14 seats. The 4-1 on 11-20 therefore looked like an absolute no-brainer.
The odds on 0-20 can't have been that much shorter?
I had a small amount on 0-10 at 16/1, which meant I didn't lose on my seat band betting.
But, I should have been thousands of pounds richer.
I covered 10 or below too.
Frankly UNS is a pretty good predictor and personal votes largely a myth as far as I can see. More elaborate models may be technically more interesting but frankly seem overly complex.
UNS doesn't work when a party's support drops as much as the Lib Dems' support did. I wrote an explanation of this in the context of Scotland in April 2014:
The tips don't look so good now, post-referendum, but the general principles were right.
Incidentally, the Lib Dems polled 7.5% in Scotland for their one seat. Not that different from the rest of the UK in the end.
UNS needs to be interpreted in the FPTP context. My prediction (18 LD seats) was made by applying a 2/3 drop in LD votes and allocating them to other parties fairly equally. This came to about 10. I applied a personal vote effect and only dropped the LD vote by 50% where they were incumbents. This is where I went wrong.
What I find slightly odd is Sainsburys reaction to this. When it was trialed during the Olympics, Tescos were extremely happy to go 24/7, but Justin King (boss of Sainsburys at the time) was very very anti, and even though King has now gone they don't seem very keen. I wonder why? Is it that their systems can't handle 24/7 store opening?
It must be peculiar to Sainsbury's business model. Even in Scotland their stores have limited opening hours on all days, I don't think they have any 24/7 stores at all and stores generally close at 8pm or 9pm (6pm on Sundays).
I'd expect the renegotiation to be almost exactly what's in the letter. I expect that what's taken the time to this point has been finding the things to put in the letter that will be acceptable all round.
If I were David Cameron I'd be trying to make sure that he keeps as many wait-and-seers as possible on board at this stage because they won't be able to get off later. MPs who aren't making a noise now will find it hard later to explain why they didn't do so if David Cameron basically gets everything he's asked for now.
I think everyone on here is wrong about the renegotiation.
I don't think there will even be an outline in place by this time next year. I think that the negotitations with the other 27 countries will be significantly more tortuous than is expected. That being said, I think newly Eurosceptic countries (Finland, Denmark), plus places where there are Eurosceptic parties challenging (such as the Netherlands), mean we will probably have more support than people think.
My view is that it will require Germany emphasising firmly the financial consequences of our departure to some of the other countries to finally secure any kind of agreement.
And because every government in the EU seeks to be re-elected, and has their own interests they wish to protect, the end agreement could look absolutely nothing like the current plan.
In other words, the idea this is all "stage managed" is ridiculous.
It is also by no means impossible that we cannot secure the agreement of all 27 other EU states, and that therefore David Cameron backs exit.
I don't think there's any chance of that whatsoever. Cameron has made it very clear he bleeds blue and gold.
If there is no agreement, not even a Heads of Terms, I don't believe he will have any choice.
Remember, any renegotiation needs to be backed by all 27 other EU heads, because Treaty change requires unanimity.
Still, it shows what utter hypocrites the SNP are. You could not ask for a clearer example of a measure which doesn't affect Scotland one jot.
Of course it effects Scotland. Suppressing an aspect of the English economy gives Scotland a competitive advantage. I'm sure there is plenty of money made in cross-border Sunday trading. There is absolutely no reason for the SNP to vote to give that up.
England demanded Scotland stay and charge Scotland about £12bn a year to remain part of the Union. That gives Scotland every right to vote any way she wants over English laws.
What nonsense. Scotland has been operating at a deficit for years, and that was before the oil price collapse. It's true that Wales and Northern Ireland are operating at even more of a deficit, but you can't claim that's "England" you're subsidising.
England didn't demand Scotland stayed. Scotland was given the choice, and the nation felt too scared to go it alone, preferring the economic security that England benevolently provides.
I'd expect the renegotiation to be almost exactly what's in the letter. I expect that what's taken the time to this point has been finding the things to put in the letter that will be acceptable all round.
If I were David Cameron I'd be trying to make sure that he keeps as many wait-and-seers as possible on board at this stage because they won't be able to get off later. MPs who aren't making a noise now will find it hard later to explain why they didn't do so if David Cameron basically gets everything he's asked for now.
I think everyone on here is wrong about the renegotiation.
I don't think there will even be an outline in place by this time next year. I think that the negotitations with the other 27 countries will be significantly more tortuous than is expected. That being said, I think newly Eurosceptic countries (Finland, Denmark), plus places where there are Eurosceptic parties challenging (such as the Netherlands), mean we will probably have more support than people think.
My view is that it will require Germany emphasising firmly the financial consequences of our departure to some of the other countries to finally secure any kind of agreement.
And because every government in the EU seeks to be re-elected, and has their own interests they wish to protect, the end agreement could look absolutely nothing like the current plan.
In other words, the idea this is all "stage managed" is ridiculous.
It is also by no means impossible that we cannot secure the agreement of all 27 other EU states, and that therefore David Cameron backs exit.
I don't think there's any chance of that whatsoever. Cameron has made it very clear he bleeds blue and gold.
Let's not forget the EU cufflinks. Who the hell has EU cufflinks.
I'd expect the renegotiation to be almost exactly what's in the letter. I expect that what's taken the time to this point has been finding the things to put in the letter that will be acceptable all round.
If I were David Cameron I'd be trying to make sure that he keeps as many wait-and-seers as possible on board at this stage because they won't be able to get off later. MPs who aren't making a noise now will find it hard later to explain why they didn't do so if David Cameron basically gets everything he's asked for now.
I think everyone on here is wrong about the renegotiation.
I don't think there will even be an outline in place by this time next year. I think that the negotitations with the other 27 countries will be significantly more tortuous than is expected. That being said, I think newly Eurosceptic countries (Finland, Denmark), plus places where there are Eurosceptic parties challenging (such as the Netherlands), mean we will probably have more support than people think.
My view is that it will require Germany emphasising firmly the financial consequences of our departure to some of the other countries to finally secure any kind of agreement.
And because every government in the EU seeks to be re-elected, and has their own interests they wish to protect, the end agreement could look absolutely nothing like the current plan.
In other words, the idea this is all "stage managed" is ridiculous.
It is also by no means impossible that we cannot secure the agreement of all 27 other EU states, and that therefore David Cameron backs exit.
I don't think there's any chance of that whatsoever. Cameron has made it very clear he bleeds blue and gold.
If there is no agreement, not even a Heads of Terms, I don't believe he will have any choice.
Remember, any renegotiation needs to be backed by all 27 other EU heads, because Treaty change requires unanimity.
He will argue he's got verbal agreement from those that matter and it's only a question of time before Britain's demands are heeded. Trust me, and vote Remain.
He will never recommend Leave in a month of Sunday's.
Simon Danczuk pulls out of China trip because organisers wouldn't upgrade him to business class
I hope everyone in Rochdale is made aware of this development. Not great publicity for Labour with Oldham West being a neighbouring constituency.
Apparently he claims to be ill
Bad case of verbal Diarrhea perhaps
I suspect that Mr D is rapidly running over his sympathy limit!
I'm not naturally inclined to defend publicity-shy Simon Danczuk. However, long-haul flights in economy are not fun at the best of times; they would be pretty excruciating with a bad back.
I'd expect the renegotiation to be almost exactly what's in the letter. I expect that what's taken the time to this point has been finding the things to put in the letter that will be acceptable all round.
If I were David Cameron I'd be trying to make sure that he keeps as many wait-and-seers as possible on board at this stage because they won't be able to get off later. MPs who aren't making a noise now will find it hard later to explain why they didn't do so if David Cameron basically gets everything he's asked for now.
I think everyone on here is wrong about the renegotiation.
I don't think there will even be an outline in place by this time next year. I think that the negotitations with the other 27 countries will be significantly more tortuous than is expected. That being said, I think newly Eurosceptic countries (Finland, Denmark), plus places where there are Eurosceptic parties challenging (such as the Netherlands), mean we will probably have more support than people think.
My view is that it will require Germany emphasising firmly the financial consequences of our departure to some of the other countries to finally secure any kind of agreement.
And because every government in the EU seeks to be re-elected, and has their own interests they wish to protect, the end agreement could look absolutely nothing like the current plan.
In other words, the idea this is all "stage managed" is ridiculous.
It is also by no means impossible that we cannot secure the agreement of all 27 other EU states, and that therefore David Cameron backs exit.
I don't think there's any chance of that whatsoever. Cameron has made it very clear he bleeds blue and gold.
If there is no agreement, not even a Heads of Terms, I don't believe he will have any choice.
Remember, any renegotiation needs to be backed by all 27 other EU heads, because Treaty change requires unanimity.
He will argue he's got verbal agreement from those that matter and it's only a question of time before Britain's demands are heeded. Trust me, and vote Remain.
He will never recommend Leave in a month of Sunday's.
I disagree. If he thinks he will lose the General Election by acceding to Brussels and accepting the status quo, he will vote leave.
Politicians number one loyalty, the world over, is to getting re-elected.
The problem for Osborne and Cameron is the same problem Thatcher faced when she tried the change Sunday trading laws, there are a number of religious and socially conservative Tory MPs who believe Sunday is a holy day and should be a day of rest. 30 Tory MPs, led by Cornerstone's David Burrowes will vote against and if they combine with Labour and the SNP the government will lose its majority and be defeated on this vote
Incumbency. Probably more a factor of the voters' psychology than anything the candidate does. Having decided to switch, the average elector will require a positive reason to switch again. And, as a former parliamentary candidate, I'd say even the most highly thought of MPs can only deliver a maximum of 2000 'personal' votes. Indeed, as a former two term councillor, I'd put local politicians' 'personal' votes as relatively higher.
Still, it shows what utter hypocrites the SNP are. You could not ask for a clearer example of a measure which doesn't affect Scotland one jot.
Of course it effects Scotland. Suppressing an aspect of the English economy gives Scotland a competitive advantage. I'm sure there is plenty of money made in cross-border Sunday trading. There is absolutely no reason for the SNP to vote to give that up.
England demanded Scotland stay and charge Scotland about £12bn a year to remain part of the Union. That gives Scotland every right to vote any way she wants over English laws.
Try again. Scotland voted to stay.
And England have every right to tell Scottish Mps they have no right to vote in this one.
I can't see any bookie troubling to offer odds on David Cameron recommending Leave.
And a government that has been charging around the EU preparing the ground for its demands ever since the election should have a pretty clear idea what is likely ultimately to be acceptable.
Still, it shows what utter hypocrites the SNP are. You could not ask for a clearer example of a measure which doesn't affect Scotland one jot.
Correct. As I understand it stores in Scotland can open for unrestricted hours. The Asda Govan Superstore is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The SNP attitude is ludicrous. Plus we have the usual sanctimonious Tory suspects, what a bunch of numpties.
Not in the Western Isles where shops are still forbidden from opening on the Sabbath
Still, it shows what utter hypocrites the SNP are. You could not ask for a clearer example of a measure which doesn't affect Scotland one jot.
Of course it effects Scotland. Suppressing an aspect of the English economy gives Scotland a competitive advantage. I'm sure there is plenty of money made in cross-border Sunday trading. There is absolutely no reason for the SNP to vote to give that up.
England demanded Scotland stay and charge Scotland about £12bn a year to remain part of the Union. That gives Scotland every right to vote any way she wants over English laws.
Sunday cross border trading. That'll plug the enormous black hole left by the oil slump.
Of course it effects Scotland. Suppressing an aspect of the English economy gives Scotland a competitive advantage. I'm sure there is plenty of money made in cross-border Sunday trading. There is absolutely no reason for the SNP to vote to give that up..
Right, so you think this shouldn't be a devolved issue at all, or are so utterly shameless that, with a straight face, you can actually have the nerve to argue that English voters should have zero say over Sunday trading in Scotland, but Scottish voters should have a full say over Sunday trading in England?
Of course it effects Scotland. Suppressing an aspect of the English economy gives Scotland a competitive advantage. I'm sure there is plenty of money made in cross-border Sunday trading. There is absolutely no reason for the SNP to vote to give that up..
Right, so you think this shouldn't be a devolved issue at all, or are so utterly shameless that, with a straight face, you can actually have the nerve to argue that English voters should have zero say over Sunday trading in Scotland, but Scottish voters should have a full say over Sunday trading in England?
I'm pretty sure it's all part of a strategy to agitate the Tories to such an extent that they put through full EVEL and the SNP can argue that there is no point staying in the union. They don't care about Sunday trading, as the law in Scotland suggests.
Still, it shows what utter hypocrites the SNP are. You could not ask for a clearer example of a measure which doesn't affect Scotland one jot.
Of course it effects Scotland. Suppressing an aspect of the English economy gives Scotland a competitive advantage. I'm sure there is plenty of money made in cross-border Sunday trading. There is absolutely no reason for the SNP to vote to give that up.
England demanded Scotland stay and charge Scotland about £12bn a year to remain part of the Union. That gives Scotland every right to vote any way she wants over English laws.
Try again. Scotland voted to stay.
And England have every right to tell Scottish Mps they have no right to vote in this one.
Oh, and oil. Hahahahaha
Scottish MPs would have no say if it wasn't for moronic English MPs who vote against Sunday trading extension.
But certainly when given the opportunity to decide the matter, Scottish MPs should always vote to limit England's economy wherever possible - as they just did. Good job from the SNP.
I'd expect the renegotiation to be almost exactly what's in the letter. I expect that what's taken the time to this point has been finding the things to put in the letter that will be acceptable all round.
If I were David Cameron I'd be trying to make sure that he keeps as many wait-and-seers as possible on board at this stage because they won't be able to get off later. MPs who aren't making a noise now will find it hard later to explain why they didn't do so if David Cameron basically gets everything he's asked for now.
I think everyone on here is wrong about the renegotiation.
I don't think there will even be an outline in place by this time next year. I think that the negotitations with the other 27 countries will be significantly more tortuous than is expected. That being said, I think newly Eurosceptic countries (Finland, Denmark), plus places where there are Eurosceptic parties challenging (such as the Netherlands), mean we will probably have more support than people think.
My view is that it will require Germany emphasising firmly the financial consequences of our departure to some of the other countries to finally secure any kind of agreement.
And because every government in the EU seeks to be re-elected, and has their own interests they wish to protect, the end agreement could look absolutely nothing like the current plan.
In other words, the idea this is all "stage managed" is ridiculous.
It is also by no means impossible that we cannot secure the agreement of all 27 other EU states, and that therefore David Cameron backs exit.
I don't think there's any chance of that whatsoever. Cameron has made it very clear he bleeds blue and gold.
If there is no agreement, not even a Heads of Terms, I don't believe he will have any choice.
Remember, any renegotiation needs to be backed by all 27 other EU heads, because Treaty change requires unanimity.
He will argue he's got verbal agreement from those that matter and it's only a question of time before Britain's demands are heeded. Trust me, and vote Remain.
He will never recommend Leave in a month of Sunday's.
I disagree. If he thinks he will lose the General Election by acceding to Brussels and accepting the status quo, he will vote leave.
Politicians number one loyalty, the world over, is to getting re-elected.
I'm pretty sure it's all part of a strategy to agitate the Tories to such an extent that they put through full EVEL and the SNP can argue that there is no point staying in the union. They don't care about Sunday trading, as the law in Scotland suggests.
Oh certainly, no doubt about it. It's just amusing to see the logical contortions they get themselves into by trying to justify the completely unjustifiable, or at least pretending to.
Not sure how often it needs pointed out to you but the Scottish Budget includes a subsidy paid to England of about £12bn made up of debt interest payments, an overspend on Defence and the contribution to the (predominantly English benefitting) National Investment Plan.
I'm pretty sure it's all part of a strategy to agitate the Tories to such an extent that they put through full EVEL and the SNP can argue that there is no point staying in the union. They don't care about Sunday trading, as the law in Scotland suggests.
Oh certainly, no doubt about it. It's just amusing to see the logical contortions they get themselves into by trying to justify the completely unjustifiable, or at least pretending to.
As ever I am behind on my daily politics. I hope they are getting some good questioning on this.
Still, it shows what utter hypocrites the SNP are. You could not ask for a clearer example of a measure which doesn't affect Scotland one jot.
Of course it effects Scotland. Suppressing an aspect of the English economy gives Scotland a competitive advantage. I'm sure there is plenty of money made in cross-border Sunday trading. There is absolutely no reason for the SNP to vote to give that up.
England demanded Scotland stay and charge Scotland about £12bn a year to remain part of the Union. That gives Scotland every right to vote any way she wants over English laws.
Sunday cross border trading. That'll plug the enormous black hole left by the oil slump.
The oil price change has had no impact on Scotland's finances. Scotland does not receive the revenues. Scotland does not get to spend the revenues. Money you never had not being there any more is not a loss.
Of course it effects Scotland. Suppressing an aspect of the English economy gives Scotland a competitive advantage. I'm sure there is plenty of money made in cross-border Sunday trading. There is absolutely no reason for the SNP to vote to give that up..
Right, so you think this shouldn't be a devolved issue at all, or are so utterly shameless that, with a straight face, you can actually have the nerve to argue that English voters should have zero say over Sunday trading in Scotland, but Scottish voters should have a full say over Sunday trading in England?
If England wants to make laws for England it needs to set up an English Parliament. Currently it is asking the UK parliament to determine its laws and I expect Scottish MPs to vote against the interests of England when they conflict with those of Scotland.
Still, it shows what utter hypocrites the SNP are. You could not ask for a clearer example of a measure which doesn't affect Scotland one jot.
Of course it effects Scotland. Suppressing an aspect of the English economy gives Scotland a competitive advantage. I'm sure there is plenty of money made in cross-border Sunday trading. There is absolutely no reason for the SNP to vote to give that up.
England demanded Scotland stay and charge Scotland about £12bn a year to remain part of the Union. That gives Scotland every right to vote any way she wants over English laws.
Sunday cross border trading. That'll plug the enormous black hole left by the oil slump.
The oil price change has had no impact on Scotland's finances. Scotland does not receive the revenues. Scotland does not get to spend the revenues. Money you never had not being there any more is not a loss.
Funny, Stuart Hosie was making that exact same point a couple of weeks back. You do realise thats because you lost the referendum? I think popcorn stockpiles worldwide would have been depleted had it gone the other way and the slump happened (which I think was entirely due to the Sauds flooding the market, nothing Scotland could have controlled).
Of course it effects Scotland. Suppressing an aspect of the English economy gives Scotland a competitive advantage. I'm sure there is plenty of money made in cross-border Sunday trading. There is absolutely no reason for the SNP to vote to give that up..
Right, so you think this shouldn't be a devolved issue at all, or are so utterly shameless that, with a straight face, you can actually have the nerve to argue that English voters should have zero say over Sunday trading in Scotland, but Scottish voters should have a full say over Sunday trading in England?
I'm pretty sure it's all part of a strategy to agitate the Tories to such an extent that they put through full EVEL and the SNP can argue that there is no point staying in the union. They don't care about Sunday trading, as the law in Scotland suggests.
A reasonable summary of what the SNP are doing, I think.
On topic, I find myself in two minds on Sunday trading.
On the one hand it's annoying that shops are rarely open for more than a few hours on Sunday. On the other hand it's a totally different day - a relaxed family day - and I'd hate to see it become a second Saturday.
I'm pretty content to see things remain as they are. I value the relaxed atmosphere of Sundays, and I think it's something everyone can benefit from, whether or not they're Christians.
Of course it effects Scotland. Suppressing an aspect of the English economy gives Scotland a competitive advantage. I'm sure there is plenty of money made in cross-border Sunday trading. There is absolutely no reason for the SNP to vote to give that up..
Right, so you think this shouldn't be a devolved issue at all, or are so utterly shameless that, with a straight face, you can actually have the nerve to argue that English voters should have zero say over Sunday trading in Scotland, but Scottish voters should have a full say over Sunday trading in England?
I'm pretty sure it's all part of a strategy to agitate the Tories to such an extent that they put through full EVEL and the SNP can argue that there is no point staying in the union. They don't care about Sunday trading, as the law in Scotland suggests.
A reasonable summary of what the SNP are doing, I think.
Much less to do with your argument about Scotland always voting against England if it is in their interest. How exactly does that logic apply to fox hunting?
Not sure how often it needs pointed out to you but the Scottish Budget includes a subsidy paid to England of about £12bn made up of debt interest payments, an overspend on Defence and the contribution to the (predominantly English benefitting) National Investment Plan.
It's all below the line.
Debt interest payments resulting from spending decisions endorsed by generations of Scottish MPs
Defence isn't "overspending" - it's just spending you disagree with
Of course it effects Scotland. Suppressing an aspect of the English economy gives Scotland a competitive advantage. I'm sure there is plenty of money made in cross-border Sunday trading. There is absolutely no reason for the SNP to vote to give that up..
Right, so you think this shouldn't be a devolved issue at all, or are so utterly shameless that, with a straight face, you can actually have the nerve to argue that English voters should have zero say over Sunday trading in Scotland, but Scottish voters should have a full say over Sunday trading in England?
If England wants to make laws for England it needs to set up an English Parliament. Currently it is asking the UK parliament to determine its laws and I expect Scottish MPs to vote against the interests of England when they conflict with those of Scotland.
It's quite a simple principle.
Alternatively the UK parliament can set up an English committee to handle English affairs.
Still, it shows what utter hypocrites the SNP are. You could not ask for a clearer example of a measure which doesn't affect Scotland one jot.
Of course it effects Scotland. Suppressing an aspect of the English economy gives Scotland a competitive advantage. I'm sure there is plenty of money made in cross-border Sunday trading. There is absolutely no reason for the SNP to vote to give that up.
England demanded Scotland stay and charge Scotland about £12bn a year to remain part of the Union. That gives Scotland every right to vote any way she wants over English laws.
Sunday cross border trading. That'll plug the enormous black hole left by the oil slump.
The oil price change has had no impact on Scotland's finances. Scotland does not receive the revenues. Scotland does not get to spend the revenues. Money you never had not being there any more is not a loss.
It certainly includes them when it calculates Scotland's financial position in GERS.
Of course it effects Scotland. Suppressing an aspect of the English economy gives Scotland a competitive advantage. I'm sure there is plenty of money made in cross-border Sunday trading. There is absolutely no reason for the SNP to vote to give that up..
Right, so you think this shouldn't be a devolved issue at all, or are so utterly shameless that, with a straight face, you can actually have the nerve to argue that English voters should have zero say over Sunday trading in Scotland, but Scottish voters should have a full say over Sunday trading in England?
If England wants to make laws for England it needs to set up an English Parliament. Currently it is asking the UK parliament to determine its laws and I expect Scottish MPs to vote against the interests of England when they conflict with those of Scotland.
It's quite a simple principle.
Alternatively the UK parliament can set up an English committee to handle English affairs.
Would the SNP accept that? Hard to keep track of their ever changing policy on this.
Of course it effects Scotland. Suppressing an aspect of the English economy gives Scotland a competitive advantage. I'm sure there is plenty of money made in cross-border Sunday trading. There is absolutely no reason for the SNP to vote to give that up..
Right, so you think this shouldn't be a devolved issue at all, or are so utterly shameless that, with a straight face, you can actually have the nerve to argue that English voters should have zero say over Sunday trading in Scotland, but Scottish voters should have a full say over Sunday trading in England?
I'm pretty sure it's all part of a strategy to agitate the Tories to such an extent that they put through full EVEL and the SNP can argue that there is no point staying in the union. They don't care about Sunday trading, as the law in Scotland suggests.
A reasonable summary of what the SNP are doing, I think.
Much less to do with your argument about Scotland always voting against England if it is in their interest. How exactly does that logic apply to fox hunting?
It's essentially the same argument, voting against England's interests *where they conflict with Scotland's interests* and agitating English MPs is the same thing.
As for fox hunting, that was stupid from the SNP. Totally pointless.
I'm pretty sure it's all part of a strategy to agitate the Tories to such an extent that they put through full EVEL and the SNP can argue that there is no point staying in the union. They don't care about Sunday trading, as the law in Scotland suggests.
Oh certainly, no doubt about it. It's just amusing to see the logical contortions they get themselves into by trying to justify the completely unjustifiable, or at least pretending to.
For Dair, anything that harms the English is, Ipso facto, a good thing.
Though speaking personally, I don't think maintaining current Sunday trading laws is a bad thing.
Not sure how often it needs pointed out to you but the Scottish Budget includes a subsidy paid to England of about £12bn made up of debt interest payments, an overspend on Defence and the contribution to the (predominantly English benefitting) National Investment Plan.
It's all below the line.
You can point out incorrect claims as much as you like, it doesn't make them true. If we are to calculate notional debt interest payments we can include those Scotland owes England for bailing out Scotland's failed attempts at colonialism. You have no sound source for your 12 bn.
sorry if this has been covered off already but busy times so not read all comments.
This piece by Tim Farron is breath-taking.. snigger inducing and yet also quite touching... has he done a head count recently?
Labour does not seem to know who it wants to represent. Is it the socialist utopia of the Corbynistas or the Blairite soft right of the 1990’s? While it makes up its mind, the Liberal Democrats will step up to the plate as the real opposition Britain needs.
Labour win by 0-5 8/1 5-10 6/1 10-15 5/2 15-20 12/5 20-25 5/1 25+ 8/1
Labour lose 8/1
If you're still about Isam I'll have a tenner on labour win 0-5 and also a tenner on labour win 5-10 please. Have to pop out but will check thread later.
Of course it effects Scotland. Suppressing an aspect of the English economy gives Scotland a competitive advantage. I'm sure there is plenty of money made in cross-border Sunday trading. There is absolutely no reason for the SNP to vote to give that up..
Right, so you think this shouldn't be a devolved issue at all, or are so utterly shameless that, with a straight face, you can actually have the nerve to argue that English voters should have zero say over Sunday trading in Scotland, but Scottish voters should have a full say over Sunday trading in England?
I'm pretty sure it's all part of a strategy to agitate the Tories to such an extent that they put through full EVEL and the SNP can argue that there is no point staying in the union. They don't care about Sunday trading, as the law in Scotland suggests.
A reasonable summary of what the SNP are doing, I think.
Much less to do with your argument about Scotland always voting against England if it is in their interest. How exactly does that logic apply to fox hunting?
It's essentially the same argument, voting against England's interests *where they conflict with Scotland's interests* and agitating English MPs is the same thing.
As for fox hunting, that was stupid from the SNP. Totally pointless.
LOL, voting when it's in conflict and voting to agitate pretty much cover all things.
I'd expect the renegotiation to be almost exactly what's in the letter. I expect that what's taken the time to this point has been finding the things to put in the letter that will be acceptable all round.
If I were David Cameron I'd be trying to make sure that he keeps as many wait-and-seers as possible on board at this stage because they won't be able to get off later. MPs who aren't making a noise now will find it hard later to explain why they didn't do so if David Cameron basically gets everything he's asked for now.
I think everyone on here is wrong about the renegotiation.
I don't think there will even be an outline in place by this time next year. I think that the negotitations with the other 27 countries will be significantly more tortuous than is expected. That being said, I think newly Eurosceptic countries (Finland, Denmark), plus places where there are Eurosceptic parties challenging (such as the Netherlands), mean we will probably have more support than people think.
My view is that it will require Germany emphasising firmly the financial consequences of our departure to some of the other countries to finally secure any kind of agreement.
And because every government in the EU seeks to be re-elected, and has their own interests they wish to protect, the end agreement could look absolutely nothing like the current plan.
In other words, the idea this is all "stage managed" is ridiculous.
It is also by no means impossible that we cannot secure the agreement of all 27 other EU states, and that therefore David Cameron backs exit.
I don't think there's any chance of that whatsoever. Cameron has made it very clear he bleeds blue and gold.
If there is no agreement, not even a Heads of Terms, I don't believe he will have any choice.
Remember, any renegotiation needs to be backed by all 27 other EU heads, because Treaty change requires unanimity.
He will argue he's got verbal agreement from those that matter and it's only a question of time before Britain's demands are heeded. Trust me, and vote Remain.
He will never recommend Leave in a month of Sunday's.
I disagree. If he thinks he will lose the General Election by acceding to Brussels and accepting the status quo, he will vote leave.
Politicians number one loyalty, the world over, is to getting re-elected.
Except he's not up for re-election.
His party is though and it would ruin his legacy to let Corbyn in through the back door by pushing a poisonous deal to the public and then losing it.
Simon Danczuk pulls out of China trip because organisers wouldn't upgrade him to business class
I hope everyone in Rochdale is made aware of this development. Not great publicity for Labour with Oldham West being a neighbouring constituency.
Apparently he claims to be ill
Bad case of verbal Diarrhea perhaps
I suspect that Mr D is rapidly running over his sympathy limit!
I'm not naturally inclined to defend publicity-shy Simon Danczuk. However, long-haul flights in economy are not fun at the best of times; they would be pretty excruciating with a bad back.
If he's ill and has such a bad back why is he boasting on Twitter he does 10K runs in an hour and is entering marathons?
Simon Danczuk @SimonDanczuk Nov 4 Just done 10k run (in the rain!), which took just one hour!
Labour win by 0-5 8/1 5-10 6/1 10-15 5/2 15-20 12/5 20-25 5/1 25+ 8/1
Labour lose 8/1
If you're still about Isam I'll have a tenner on labour win 0-5 and also a tenner on labour win 5-10 please. Have to pop out but will check thread later.
"Including an illustrative geographic share of North Sea revenue, was a deficit of £12.4 billion (8.1 per cent of GDP).
For the UK, was a deficit of 97.3 billion (5.6 per cent of GDP)"
And under Scottish Independence, the UK deficit would be around £110bn or 6.3% while Scotland's deficit would be around £1bn or 0.6%.
You keep quoting this bullshit £12bn figure with no source, please provide a source for said figure or stop using it. Wings over Bath does not count as a source and neither does any SNP propaganda.
sorry if this has been covered off already but busy times so not read all comments.
This piece by Tim Farron is breath-taking.. snigger inducing and yet also quite touching... has he done a head count recently?
Labour does not seem to know who it wants to represent. Is it the socialist utopia of the Corbynistas or the Blairite soft right of the 1990’s? While it makes up its mind, the Liberal Democrats will step up to the plate as the real opposition Britain needs.
So the Lib Dems are going back to the days when they went hard on the "civil liberties" stuff.
Something which will probably only resonate with a very small % of the public, but at this point I guess just having something to say/do is an improvement for the party.
"Including an illustrative geographic share of North Sea revenue, was a deficit of £12.4 billion (8.1 per cent of GDP).
For the UK, was a deficit of 97.3 billion (5.6 per cent of GDP)"
And under Scottish Independence, the UK deficit would be around £110bn or 6.3% while Scotland's deficit would be around £1bn or 0.6%.
You keep quoting this bullshit £12bn figure with no source, please provide a source for said figure or stop using it. Wings over Bath does not count as a source and neither does any SNP propaganda.
That pretty much rules out Scottish Government figures too
Still, it shows what utter hypocrites the SNP are. You could not ask for a clearer example of a measure which doesn't affect Scotland one jot.
Of course it effects Scotland. Suppressing an aspect of the English economy gives Scotland a competitive advantage. I'm sure there is plenty of money made in cross-border Sunday trading. There is absolutely no reason for the SNP to vote to give that up.
England demanded Scotland stay and charge Scotland about £12bn a year to remain part of the Union. That gives Scotland every right to vote any way she wants over English laws.
Try again. Scotland voted to stay.
And England have every right to tell Scottish Mps they have no right to vote in this one.
Oh, and oil. Hahahahaha
Scottish MPs would have no say if it wasn't for moronic English MPs who vote against Sunday trading extension.
But certainly when given the opportunity to decide the matter, Scottish MPs should always vote to limit England's economy wherever possible - as they just did. Good job from the SNP.
Scottish MPs should vote to limit England's economy?! WTAF?!
Scottish MPs should vote to bar the UK economy, and thus harm their constituents?
"Including an illustrative geographic share of North Sea revenue, was a deficit of £12.4 billion (8.1 per cent of GDP).
For the UK, was a deficit of 97.3 billion (5.6 per cent of GDP)"
And under Scottish Independence, the UK deficit would be around £110bn or 6.3% while Scotland's deficit would be around £1bn or 0.6%.
You keep quoting this bullshit £12bn figure with no source, please provide a source for said figure or stop using it. Wings over Bath does not count as a source and neither does any SNP propaganda.
That pretty much rules out Scottish Government figures too
What tells me it's bullshit is that the more sensible Nats don't use it, I never saw Stuart Dickson post that figure, nor TUD or even bloody Mick Pork.
"Including an illustrative geographic share of North Sea revenue, was a deficit of £12.4 billion (8.1 per cent of GDP).
For the UK, was a deficit of 97.3 billion (5.6 per cent of GDP)"
And under Scottish Independence, the UK deficit would be around £110bn or 6.3% while Scotland's deficit would be around £1bn or 0.6%.
You keep quoting this bullshit £12bn figure with no source, please provide a source for said figure or stop using it. Wings over Bath does not count as a source and neither does any SNP propaganda.
It's hardly smoke and mirrors. The main items are : -
English Debt Interest - £4.5bn allocated to Scotland Defence Overspend - £1.5bn allocated to Scotland National Infrastructure Plan - £6bn allocated to Scotland
The final one is the hardest to identify because chunks of it don't go near GERS (funded by additional borrowing primarily). Some of the estimates put it as high as £10bn per annum some as low as £4bn, there were plenty of references from the Referendum but it seems you will just call them propaganda.
"Including an illustrative geographic share of North Sea revenue, was a deficit of £12.4 billion (8.1 per cent of GDP).
For the UK, was a deficit of 97.3 billion (5.6 per cent of GDP)"
And under Scottish Independence, the UK deficit would be around £110bn or 6.3% while Scotland's deficit would be around £1bn or 0.6%.
You keep quoting this bullshit £12bn figure with no source, please provide a source for said figure or stop using it. Wings over Bath does not count as a source and neither does any SNP propaganda.
That pretty much rules out Scottish Government figures too
What tells me it's bullshit is that the more sensible Nats don't use it, I never saw Stuart Dickson post that figure, nor TUD or even bloody Mick Pork.
Indeed. Another indication is that it comes from Dair, who in the past couldn't work out how VAT works.
"Including an illustrative geographic share of North Sea revenue, was a deficit of £12.4 billion (8.1 per cent of GDP).
For the UK, was a deficit of 97.3 billion (5.6 per cent of GDP)"
And under Scottish Independence, the UK deficit would be around £110bn or 6.3% while Scotland's deficit would be around £1bn or 0.6%.
You keep quoting this bullshit £12bn figure with no source, please provide a source for said figure or stop using it. Wings over Bath does not count as a source and neither does any SNP propaganda.
It's hardly smoke and mirrors. The main items are : -
English Debt Interest - £4.5bn allocated to Scotland Defence Overspend - £1.5bn allocated to Scotland National Infrastructure Plan - £6bn allocated to Scotland
The final one is the hardest to identify because chunks of it don't go near GERS (funded by additional borrowing primarily). Some of the estimates put it as high as £10bn per annum some as low as £4bn, there were plenty of references from the Referendum but it seems you will just call them propaganda.
Please provide evidence for all of these spending outlays, links to official documents or even someone quoting these figures would be a start. The debt interest is laughable, defence also given that the SNP want to maintain NATO membership and therefore must sign up to the 2% minimum spend (given that Scotland's economy is slightly better on a per capita measure if anything the defence spending allocated is slightly lower than it would be for an independent Scotland in NATO). There aren't even any figures on the infrastructure plans, let alone how it will be funded.
On Sunday trading,leave well alone,we are all well used to the present system,so let sleeping dogs lie. But remember when you could not buy a can of beer," A wee tinny" North of the border, before 7pm on a Sunday evening. Remember North Wales ,Dry on Sundays. It takes time for changes.
"Including an illustrative geographic share of North Sea revenue, was a deficit of £12.4 billion (8.1 per cent of GDP).
For the UK, was a deficit of 97.3 billion (5.6 per cent of GDP)"
And under Scottish Independence, the UK deficit would be around £110bn or 6.3% while Scotland's deficit would be around £1bn or 0.6%.
You keep quoting this bullshit £12bn figure with no source, please provide a source for said figure or stop using it. Wings over Bath does not count as a source and neither does any SNP propaganda.
It's hardly smoke and mirrors. The main items are : -
English Debt Interest - £4.5bn allocated to Scotland Defence Overspend - £1.5bn allocated to Scotland National Infrastructure Plan - £6bn allocated to Scotland
The final one is the hardest to identify because chunks of it don't go near GERS (funded by additional borrowing primarily). Some of the estimates put it as high as £10bn per annum some as low as £4bn, there were plenty of references from the Referendum but it seems you will just call them propaganda.
Please provide evidence for all of these spending outlays, links to official documents or even someone quoting these figures would be a start. The debt interest is laughable, defence also given that the SNP want to maintain NATO membership and therefore must sign up to the 2% minimum spend (given that Scotland's economy is slightly better on a per capita measure if anything the defence spending allocated is slightly lower than it would be for an independent Scotland in NATO). There aren't even any figures on the infrastructure plans, let alone how it will be funded.
Your figures are a joke and so are you.
Few NATO countries spend anything like 2% of GDP on Defence, comparable nations to the size of Scotland are usually around 1% to 1.5%. The White Paper proposed a £1bn saving but that's higher than I would vote for in the first post-independence elections.
The UK's current extravagance on Defence to maintain the fiction of being a world power and remotely relevant to the geo-political situation is one of the most ridiculous hangovers from colonial Britain.
Comments
But, I should have been thousands of pounds richer.
I suspect he doesn't care about immigration that much, although he knows he needs something major here for the campaign. However, I think any politician with his head on straight will know that we will need some change to the system to stop a federalising Eurozone from being able to do what it wants without agreement from others. If we don't get something practical to stop that, it would be ridiculous to back Remain. We'd be ruled by a foreign power without any blocking ability whatsoever.
1.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3311102/WATCH-trustee-Ghulam-Mustafa-Trust-unleashes-foul-mouthed-tirade-claims-f-ing-Jews-track-Samsung-smartphones-anti-Semitic-video.html
2.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=3XT8Re4r_ig
He told the Evening Standard a health condition, reportedly a back problem, would have made the 11-hour flight "unsuitable" for him.
Tory MP Richard Graham, who chairs the All Party Parliamentary China Group, who organised the trip, said the whole visit had to be cancelled after Mr Danczuk said he wouldn't go.
Apparently the Tories still required to match him, seems a waste of time.
Frankly UNS is a pretty good predictor and personal votes largely a myth as far as I can see. More elaborate models may be technically more interesting but frankly seem overly complex.
England demanded Scotland stay and charge Scotland about £12bn a year to remain part of the Union. That gives Scotland every right to vote any way she wants over English laws.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/parliamentary-constituencies/ashton-under-lyne/11983331/Labour-MP-uses-Commons-notepaper-to-criticise-shoe-shop-for-failing-to-reserve-novelty-Star-Wars-shoes.html
But then, unlike Danczuk, she's a Corbyn supporter ...
All ethnic minority groups in England are now, on average, more likely to go to university than their White British peers. This is the case even amongst groups who were previously under-represented in higher education, such as those of Black Caribbean ethnic origin, a relatively recent change.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-hunt-for-2010-lib-dems-part-1.html
The tips don't look so good now, post-referendum, but the general principles were right.
Incidentally, the Lib Dems polled 7.5% in Scotland for their one seat. Not that different from the rest of the UK in the end.
Remember, any renegotiation needs to be backed by all 27 other EU heads, because Treaty change requires unanimity.
England didn't demand Scotland stayed. Scotland was given the choice, and the nation felt too scared to go it alone, preferring the economic security that England benevolently provides.
He will never recommend Leave in a month of Sunday's.
Politicians number one loyalty, the world over, is to getting re-elected.
Probably more a factor of the voters' psychology than anything the candidate does. Having decided to switch, the average elector will require a positive reason to switch again.
And, as a former parliamentary candidate, I'd say even the most highly thought of MPs can only deliver a maximum of 2000 'personal' votes.
Indeed, as a former two term councillor, I'd put local politicians' 'personal' votes as relatively higher.
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/77107000/gif/_77107339_scotland_deficit_gdp_464.gif
And that was before the oil price almost halved.
And England have every right to tell Scottish Mps they have no right to vote in this one.
Oh, and oil. Hahahahaha
And a government that has been charging around the EU preparing the ground for its demands ever since the election should have a pretty clear idea what is likely ultimately to be acceptable.
But certainly when given the opportunity to decide the matter, Scottish MPs should always vote to limit England's economy wherever possible - as they just did. Good job from the SNP.
It's all below the line.
It's quite a simple principle.
Tories 1/6 vs LD 7/2
Defence isn't "overspending" - it's just spending you disagree with
"Including an illustrative geographic share of North Sea revenue, was a deficit of £12.4 billion (8.1 per cent of GDP).
For the UK, was a deficit of 97.3 billion (5.6 per cent of GDP)"
As for fox hunting, that was stupid from the SNP. Totally pointless.
Though speaking personally, I don't think maintaining current Sunday trading laws is a bad thing.
This piece by Tim Farron is breath-taking.. snigger inducing and yet also quite touching... has he done a head count recently?
Labour does not seem to know who it wants to represent. Is it the socialist utopia of the Corbynistas or the Blairite soft right of the 1990’s? While it makes up its mind, the Liberal Democrats will step up to the plate as the real opposition Britain needs.
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/why-cant-labour-decide-if-it-opposes-the-investigatory-powers-bill/
Simon Danczuk @SimonDanczuk Nov 4
Just done 10k run (in the rain!), which took just one hour!
Something which will probably only resonate with a very small % of the public, but at this point I guess just having something to say/do is an improvement for the party.
Scottish MPs should vote to bar the UK economy, and thus harm their constituents?
Disgusting. Shameful.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34777149
English Debt Interest - £4.5bn allocated to Scotland
Defence Overspend - £1.5bn allocated to Scotland
National Infrastructure Plan - £6bn allocated to Scotland
The final one is the hardest to identify because chunks of it don't go near GERS (funded by additional borrowing primarily). Some of the estimates put it as high as £10bn per annum some as low as £4bn, there were plenty of references from the Referendum but it seems you will just call them propaganda.
Your figures are a joke and so are you.
But remember when you could not buy a can of beer," A wee tinny" North of the border, before 7pm on a Sunday evening.
Remember North Wales ,Dry on Sundays. It takes time for changes.
The UK's current extravagance on Defence to maintain the fiction of being a world power and remotely relevant to the geo-political situation is one of the most ridiculous hangovers from colonial Britain.
new thread