Am curious to know how his speech today has been reported in England, Wales and Ireland?It seems to be a plea to try and persuade folks that GB needs Scotland.
However, up here in Scotland it seems to have been the biggest single vote winner for the Independence campaign without them having to do anything!!
Any comments on social media that I have seen, and even reporting on BBC Scotland, seems to suggest that DC has just got this all so , so wrong.
I can understand why he refuses to have a live debate with Alex Salmond as he will never win. Traditionally Scotland does not like Tories, we don't have many of them, we have a GB Tory Government that Scottish people didn't vote for. So if he had to try and get voters to pick his vision over Salmonds, he would be ripped apart.
There is part of me that thinks, does he really want to keep Scotland? Without us the Tories will probably have domination at Westminster for years to come. I read on here some comments from the English contributors about not wanting us and for us to go away as we allegedly bleed the country die.
|
|
Without being unkind, I think the attitude of the man on the Clapham Omnibus is one of couldn't care less either way. Outside of the chattering classes it just isn't a big issue .
|
His email this afternoon about it was so dull I decided I'd rather gnaw off my left leg than finish reading it.
|
|
Regardless of what happens I have a vision of Salmond retiring on a fat pension and leaving Joe Scots public to suffer the consequences of his actions (ego).
Last edited by: Uncle Albert on Fri 7 Feb 14 at 19:34
|
|
Probably a fair assessment. I guess if pushed most most English people would like to see Scotland stay in the Union feel that if they want to go their own way so be it. Most people I have spoken to are fairly disinterested and bored by the whole process.
|
>>Most people I have spoken to are fairly disinterested and bored by the whole process.
Think that is the case up here as well!!
|
>> >>Most people I have spoken to are fairly disinterested and bored by the whole process.
>>
>>
Uninterested certainly.
|
"It's a win win for the Scots, if they go and fail, they will get a bail out from the E.U.... and we are one of the biggest payers in to that 'con club'..... so if the Scots go, vote UKIP and close the border".
A comment from Altea Ego's esteemed newspaper.
|
>> "It's a win win for the Scots, if they go and fail, they will get
>> a bail out from the E.U.... and we are one of the biggest payers in
>> to that 'con club'..... so if the Scots go, vote UKIP and close the border".
>>
>> A comment from Altea Ego's esteemed newspaper.
I'd blame the Jews if I were you.
|
|
Thought it was the Zionists? Easy to blame: less easy to identify:)
|
It's a fight that Unionist's can't win.
Currently if nothing changes the vote will be in favour of the Status Quo.
The more Cameron spouts out like an utter helmet who couldn't be more disinterested and disconnected from Scotland, as OP suggests, the more the 'Yes' campaign will grow!
The Unionists just need to sit back, smile politely, says it's up to the Scots to decide, AND KEEP THEIR GOBS SHUT and the No vote will win.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Fri 7 Feb 14 at 20:06
|
"Currently if nothing changes the vote will be in favour of the Status Quo."
"Whatever You Want"
|
I will be surprised if the Scots vote for independence. No one wants them to except the more gung-ho nats. And I'm sure they don't fancy losing the quid and getting the Euro instead. Everyone knows that when the currency changes the government rips everyone off. Remember decimalisation?
Personally I'm still mourning the farthing, just as mature Egyptians must be mourning the millième (a bit less than a farthing actually, a thousandth of an Egyptian quid instead of a 960th, and the Egyptian quid itself was a bit smaller than a Sterling one I seem to remember...
Of course the Egyptian quid was far ahead in being already decimalised into 100 piastres.
Piastres! I am almost weeping with nostalgia.
PS: the Scots have a funny relationship with the Tories if you ask me. There's Glasgow and Clydeside and the Highland Clearances and all that, but there's also Baillie Vass and Harold Macmillan and the rest with their hecatombs of pheasants, hares and capercaillies.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 7 Feb 14 at 20:13
|
If AS wants independence then fine. Real independence. No shared pound.
He wants independence and financial support from the UK. Cake and eat it stuff.
|
If Scotland was independent why on earth would we want tied to the pound?
I think it's purely a political nonsense to try to stop potential 'Yes' voters being frightened of losing the oh-so-solid-pound.
|
>> If Scotland was independent why on earth would we want tied to the pound?
Exactly.
>> I think it's purely a political nonsense to try to stop potential 'Yes' voters being
>> frightened of losing the oh-so-solid-pound.
No its a genuine financial vehicle. He wants to get access to cheap borrowing. A Scottish poond would have no collateral on the world market and would be battered by instability.
The alternative - the Euro, is politically unacceptable to the scottish people.
And if the scots got it all wrong and became bankrupt, he knows the BOE would have to bail them out to save the pound.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 7 Feb 14 at 20:30
|
>>And if the scots got it all wrong and became bankrupt, he knows the BOE would have to bail them out to save the pound
And as we know bail-outs come without conditions and austerity - on this point you're talking caca Zeddo - a bankrupt Scotland will be cast adrift as it should be.
|
>> >>And if the scots got it all wrong and became bankrupt, he knows the BOE
>> would have to bail them out to save the pound
>>
>> And as we know bail-outs come without conditions and austerity - on this point you're
>> talking caca Zeddo - a bankrupt Scotland will be cast adrift as it should be.
Not if it had the pound as its currency. Simply couldn't be allowed to happen as It would bring down the rest of the remaining UK. Its not caca it really is the way it is.
|
>> Simply couldn't be allowed to happen as It would bring down the rest of the remaining UK
Only if rUK were in deep doodoo also - if the EU were in a stronger position they could realisitically have considered ditching the Greeks and Portuguese, but the 'contagion' effect would have been very real at that time, tying their hands.
If somehow Scotland 2.0 did another 'Darrien' then I'm pretty sure they could be jettisoned from the £ound.
|
>> purely a political nonsense to try to stop potential 'Yes' voters being frightened of losing the oh-so-solid-pound.
Especially those banknotes, tolerated by banks in this country but scornfully rejected by Indian booze-shop owners, that mention banks no one has ever heard of eh Lygonos?
God you Jocks get a bit sprauncy sometimes. Watch out or I'll tell the oil cartel to pull the plug on a temporary basis.
What people fear, quite rightly, isn't really the currency they will end up with but the process of change, during which they know viscerally that they will be robbed.
|
>> PS: the Scots have a funny relationship with the Tories if you ask me. There's
>> Glasgow and Clydeside and the Highland Clearances and all that, but there's also Baillie Vass
>> and Harold Macmillan and the rest with their hecatombs of pheasants, hares and capercaillies.
Not that much differentiation between Macmillan or Home and the clearances. Landlord's pleasures/profit -v- ordinary citizen's rights to till and graze land for a living.
In 79 the Tories had seats from the borders to Aberdeen. IIRC they've gone o zero and currently hold one in Dumfries or therabouts
|
>> Landlord's pleasures/profit -v- ordinary citizen's rights to till and graze land for a living.
Quite so. Perhaps what I really meant was that the Tories have a funny relationship with the Scots.
|
>>Tories have a funny relationship with the Scots.
The Conservatives suffer as a result of the FPTP system in General Elections up here.
In 2010 they scored almost as many votes as the SNP in the Election but by virtue of them being in wealthy 'ghettos' they field little MP numbers.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Kingdom_general_election_results_in_Scotland#Conservative_Party
|
"Traditionally Scotland does not like Tories, we don't have many of them, we have a GB Tory Government that Scottish people didn't vote for. "
A few years ago, we suffered a deranged Scottish Prime Minister who the English people didn't vote for. That is reason enough for the English to say "Fine - bog off then!"
|
I think we've got this all wrong.
Didn't we accept a Scottish king a while back? The original union was the union of the crowns in 1603, when the English accepted James VI of Scotland as James I of England.
It's the English who should be having a vote on whether to bail out of the union.
The trouble is that while Scottish, Welsh and for that master Irish nationalism can be proudly stated, anybody who claims to be an English nationalist is likely to be labelled a racist or a Nazi.
Yet who pays for all the Scots' and Welsh's prescriptions?
Maybe Englishness will be able to regain respectability if we can shake off all these righteous spongers.
|
>>Maybe Englishness will be able to regain respectability if we can shake off all these righteous spongers.
Nah, that's not Nazism or racism. It's called being a tool.
Scottish and Welsh prescriptions are paid for out of the devolved parliaments' budgets.
Next.
|
|
Cameron's speech was reported on the mid-night news tonight on R4. Seems he claimed to be Welsh, English and Scottish....he held back on any Irish ancestry though. I don't know what to believe any more. I know that the Welsh Government has a majority of idiocy - which is a shame 'cos i could work really well.I reckon the future should be a federalised England, Wales and Scotland and let NI go off on its own somewhere.
|
>> Nah, that's not Nazism or racism. It's called being a tool.
>>
Precisely. I merely put the argument in Salmond speak.
The whole debate is ludicrous. Unfortunately it is being taken seriously.
|
>>The whole debate is ludicrous.
Yup - it's the usual polarised nonsense with each side decrying the other as utterly doomed fantasists.
The reality is that an independent Scotland will manage fine, and remaining in the UK will be fine.
Politics of greed and envy hard at work in both camps.
>>Unfortunately it is being taken seriously.
Fortunately at least half of the population appear not to give much of a toot.
|
>> A few years ago, we suffered a deranged Scottish Prime Minister who the English people
>> didn't vote for. That is reason enough for the English to say "Fine - bog
>> off then!"
Come off it Haywain. You know as well as I do that we elect MPs and from a party that may subsequently change its leader. In 2005 Blair saidd he would stand down mid-term. Brown was always the heir apparent.
The conservatives do it as well. Eden, MacMillan, Home and Major all walked into Number 10 between elections. In the earlier cases without even a vote among the party's MPs. Labour did it with Callaghan and, as you say, Brown.
It's not inconceivable that Boris Johnson could be selected for a winnable by-election (even that somebody could stand down to make way for him) and then challenge Cameron for the leadership.
|
|
Apart from a general view that it would be a shame to Balkanise the country, my attitude to Scottish independence is the same as to homosexuality and feminism; I don't care what the others do, so long as they don't bore me with them.
|
|
At least if the Scots do get independence we won't have to put up with listening to the results from about ninety five Scottish divisions before we get to the English league's match reports.
|
>> forfar 5-4 east fife
>>
Scotland 0 - England 20
|
>> >> forfar 5-4 east fife
>> >>
>>
>> Scotland 0 - England 20
>>
Bit of a grind in the mud, but a decent win for England. They'll have to step up a lot against Ireland who are looking very good this year.
|
"Come off it Haywain."
Congratulations, Brompto, you have joined with my father in that tiny elite group that still admires or, at least, sympathises with G Brown. Like my father (88), I infer that you are beyond reasoned discussion - so I won't bother.
|
>> Congratulations, Brompto, you have joined with my father in that tiny elite group that still
>> admires or, at least, sympathises with G Brown. Like my father (88), I infer that
>> you are beyond reasoned discussion - so I won't bother.
I wasn't prompted so much by that as by the constitutional position with an 'unelected' PM.
Brown has a phenomenal brain and was in a large part responsible for stopping the 2008 financial crisis becoming a metldown. But, while stopping well short of deranged, his personality is such that he was never going to be a successful party leader.
Alan Johnson might well have won it for them in 2010 if he'd been leader and not Brown.
|
|
He was part of the cause as well Brompie. That is air-brushed out of history though(remember his bust and boom speeches, his prudence, his de-regulating of the banking systems, his selling of gold for no good reason). The man was totally unsuited for high office. Any psychometric testing would have ruled him out. He is an intellectual, but a very poor communicator. Agree with the Alan Johnston thing though. He eclipses the current front benchers in the Labour party. Whilst they hang on to the dreadful Ed. Balls and to a lesser extent Milliband they are doomed.
|
Up to a point Rob.
Nobody, least of all the Opposition, was telling him not to de-regulate. The main cries were that he should be going further. Open markets, London's place in the world all that sort of thing.
Not convinced at the no reason to sell gold bit either. Holding large amounts in an asset that's bumped along the bottom for nigh on 20yrs isn't necessarily good economics. Putting the money into a spread of foreign currency etc was hardly the action of a madman. If he's doing it then he has to comply with the rules of the market about openness etc.
The reason it looks stupid is hindsight - 9/11 created a rush to tangible assets and sent gold prices through roof. The turbulence of 2007/8 did more of the same.
I agree about psychometric testing; would that we could apply that to all our politicans. I'd love to see Myers Briggs type indicators for members of both front benches. And BoJo's would be even more interesting......
|
>>Brown has a phenomenal brain and was in a large part responsible for stopping the 2008
>>financial crisis becoming a metldown.
The crisis that came after WHO had been Chancellor of the Exchequer for the previous decade?
|
>> The crisis that came after WHO had been Chancellor of the Exchequer for the previous
>> decade?
The crisis that only affected the UK? Nothing, nil, yadda in the USA etc? :-P
|
|
There was very little wrong with Gordon Brown apart from the expression on his face. My wife didn't like that but it didn't bother me at all. People who single him out for opprobrium are just brainless ideologues.
|
"People who single him out for opprobrium are just brainless ideologues."
Sorry, AC, but the fact that he didn't see the 10p-tax backlash coming makes GB just such a brainless ideologue.
Phenomenal brain - he had a phenomenal brain alright! Tscha!
Still, he still manages to convince his constituency that he is worth voting for despite his absence from the House; I suppose that takes some sort of phenomenal brain ………… or brainless, ideologue voters.
|
>> Still, he still manages to convince his constituency that he is worth voting for despite
>> his absence from the House; I suppose that takes some sort of phenomenal brain …………
>> or brainless, ideologue voters.
>>
It is in the Peoples Democratic Republic of Fife. They will vote for anything red, or SNP if they are feeling really radical.
Last edited by: Uncle Albert on Mon 10 Feb 14 at 14:15
|
>> Still, he still manages to convince his constituency that he is worth voting for despite
>> his absence from the House; I suppose that takes some sort of phenomenal brain …………
>> or brainless, ideologue voters.
He's reportedly assiduous in dealing with constituency work and personal cases. Far more value to his constituents doing that. Being in the house all the time invites comparisons with the last brooding presence below the gangway - Ted Heath.
|
"order-order.com/tag/wheres-gordon/"
Thank you, Roger, it's worse than I imagined it could be!
|
"Being in the house all the time invites comparisons with the last brooding presence below the gangway - Ted Heath."
You have a point there. He should have simply resigned after the last election and become a social-worker. However, I imagine he'd get paid more, with better expenses, as an MP.
|
|
Remind me about the German crisis (excluding loans made by their banks to UK-sited property)?
|
>> Remind me about the German crisis (excluding loans made by their banks to UK-sited property)?
Germany has, IIRC, some sort of constitutional provision for fiscal rectitude - a legacy of the Weimar era's hyper inflation. I'm not convinced German economics and the level of Federal intervention involved would meet our the aspirations of our 'Free Market'.
2007/8 affected pretty much every other other Western nation including the US (hit particularly hard) and France as well as Iceland and Ireland.
|
|
You're right; Germany is a Communist country. Which is why it's so unsuccessful and nobody wants to buy its cars, washing machines etc. etc.
|
>> You're right; Germany is a Communist country. Which is why it's so unsuccessful and nobody
>> wants to buy its cars, washing machines etc. etc.
No. Germany has a successful economy in part due to a level of state intervention that would make our free market/libertarian politicos turn puce.
|
It's an absurd argument where all the participants have managed to box themselves into the wrong corners.
Salmond doesn't really want independence, he just wants to have an excuse to go on complainng and wringing more money out of Wesrminster. But his bluff has been called and he's been forced to put up. His bluster becomes more wearisome as he faces the fear that he may actually get what he unwisely wished for.
Cameron like most English people probably really wants the union, but has manoeuvred himself into a position where saying he does may actually bring about its end,
So the hilarious result may be that the Scots end up rejecting independence, while the English support it.
|
I have a lot of Scottish blood in my veins and know quite a few Scots happy living in England. We are all of the same thought that Salmond is on a huge ego trip but that, if the Scots do wish to become independent, let them go ahead.
They'll soon find that grandiose ideas such a 20,000 strong armed force, providing many free services to the inhabitants and doing without the financial assistance from Westminster won't seem so wonderful when a population of just five million has to fund it all. Uncle Albert spoke a lot of sense earlier in the thread.
|
Very good - says it all !
Aren't meercats a clever invention - wherever did David Attenborough get the idea from? :)
|
|
From a well known comparison site, of course!
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26215963
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has said it would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible" for an independent Scotland to join the European Union.
I await the response from north of the border.
|
|
The SNP can only hope for enough of a minority to vote "Yes" to keep the debate alive for another crack somewhere down the line. Even they must realise they have no chance of winning this time.
|
>> The SNP can only hope for enough of a minority to vote "Yes" to keep
>> the debate alive for another crack somewhere down the line. Even they must realise they
>> have no chance of winning this time.
>>
That's the way it's likely to be from now on. Nothing will ever be finally settled.
A Yes vote will be for about 20 years, or the next recession whichever is sooner.
A No vote will be for 5 years.
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26215963
>>
>> European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has said it would be "extremely difficult, if not
>> impossible" for an independent Scotland to join the European Union.
>>
>> I await the response from north of the border.
The idea that further 'new' members need not apply will be a bit of a shock between Iceland, the Balkans and possibly Turkey.
Barroso is a politician and is playing some kind of political piece, possibly associated with Spanish sensitivity over its problems in Catalonia etc.
|
As an issue, it'n not a deal-maker or deal-breaker as far as the vote goes in September.
What it does show, I think, is the amateurish way the SNP has attempted to sit at the 'big boy' table by stating what WILL happen post independence.
We will get rid of nuclear weapons and be part of NATO
We will keep using the £ and have fiscal union with rUK
We will remain in the EU but not need to take on the Euro
This all smacks of Obama promising to close Guantanamo within a year - you know the guy wants it shut but even he hasn't the political muscle to force it through.
Ultimately, though, I expect the No vote to win by a small margin, and subsequent "Devo-Max" will lead on to more areas of competence for Holyrood, with or without hypothecating tax receipts to individual governments.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Sun 16 Feb 14 at 15:59
|
>> Ultimately, though, I expect the No vote to win by a small margin,
Hear him, hear him, the canny Jock shock doc... The size of the margin will be interesting. Hope it isn't too small.
|
I'd bet on a large margin. However many Scots might feel about the English the harsh reality of possible economic Armageddon will heavily sway the vote. Better the devil you know, etc.
On top of that Salmond comes more and more across as having little clue himself about where an independent Scotland would stand. He certainly wouldn't inspire me with confidence.
|
5 to one on for a "No" vote at Ladbrokes. Latest YouGov. opinion poll give 52% "No" and 34% "Yes".
I expect the odds on a "No vote'' to shorten even further as the poll approaches.
|
I keep in touch with friends and family north of the border. I've yet to hear any one of them say they're in favour of separation.
Won't happen. Non-event.
|
|
Due to my residential location I will be voting in the referendum. I have yet to speak to anyone who will admit to being in favour of independence. The economics of separation is high in peoples minds, a common statement seems to be "How will a population of five million or so fund all of Salmonds promises"? He seems to have one hell of a chip on his shoulder about the English (is that racist?) and live in a fantasy world.
Last edited by: Uncle Albert on Sun 16 Feb 14 at 18:55
|
>> seems to have one hell of a chip on his shoulder about the English (is that racist?)
Nah. Racism works de haut en bas. The English are racist about the Jocks, Taffs and Micks. The Jocks, Taffs and Micks are merely resentful of the Jumbles.
I don't think the engaging Alex Salmond* has a chip on his shoulder. He's just made his assumption about Scottish attitudes. Who knows, he may be closer to the mark than he seems.
*There's something he has in common with the Kipper King (apart from marginality) which I can't quite put my finger on. A certain bouncy juiciness.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sun 16 Feb 14 at 19:17
|
I sat next to Alex Salmond on the London-Edinburgh shuttle flight one Friday night a very long time ago.
A surprisingly engaging conversationalist actually. Clearly a career politician though. I think he wants to be remembered. At all costs in my assessment. These people have one agenda. Their own. Best to recognise that.
|
>> I sat next to Alex Salmond on the London-Edinburgh shuttle flight one Friday night a
>> very long time ago.
>>
>> A surprisingly engaging conversationalist actually.
>>
I'd say most politicians probably are. After they've retired from office and freed from the restraints of the party machine they come across as intelligent and informative people.
|
>> I'd say most politicians probably are. After they've retired from office and freed from the
>> restraints of the party machine they come across as intelligent and informative people.
>>
I refer you to my earlier post (fourth in this thread).
|
>> I'd say most politicians probably are. After they've retired from office and freed from the
>> restraints of the party machine they come across as intelligent and informative people.
Plenty come over as normal even when in office. Locally, Northampton MPs Sally Keeble and then Brian Binley were successive chairs of the town's Rail User Group. Very different styles but both were approachable, effective and both committed and quite frank about what was and was not possible.
As a Civil Servant I consciously avoided working in HQ never mind Minister's Private Offices. I did however deal with correspondence from MPs and met a fair number of Junior Ministers and select committee chairs.
The much maligned Baroness (call me Cathy) Ashton was particularly on the ball and committed to her role, as opposed to party line. So were Baroness Scotland, Alan Beith and particularly Bernard Jenkin.
Which is not to say that others were not either climbing the greasy pole or incompetents promoted way beyond their ability.
|
So an independent Scotland might have difficulty in joining the EU? There is an easy solution. If, before the vote, England and Scotland swap names then if England votes for independence they would remain in the EU and we would be out. Everybody wins.
ps if it's confusing, I live in Suffolk, believe in a free-trade area, and love the UK
|
I reside N of the border, so get a vote, despite my english accent...!
Recently received the latest Yes propaganda, which was basically a list of promises to spend more money, without any actual detail on where the money was coming from.
He apparently wants independence, but a central part of the plan seems to be closer integration with Europe? Either he wants indpencene or he doesn't!
Although a majorty are against, there is a risk that only rabid nationalists will go out and vote, and it will get through on a minority majority IYSWIM.
Mind you, if the EU say non, then I might be tempted to acutally vote Oui!!
It's a collassal waste of time and money - bit like the Scottish Parliament building really....
|
I can imagine some other EU members will think along the lines of:
- EU is moving to greater integration (some of us might not want that for the UK of course) so Scotland moving away from the UK is also moving away from the UK in terms of independence. If they want to be part of an integrated EU, then why not as part of the UK?
- Some countries now in the EU waited many years before being allowed into it - so why should Scotland jump the queue so to speak.... they will have to follow the process
- The countries in the Eurozone have already spent hundreds of billions bailing out the members - why allow a country into the EU that doesn't even have a proper plan for a currency and central bank?
Scotland probably will argue they are currently part of the EU now and only want their independence from the UK.
Regardless of why the government might say no to Scotland having the pound, if we say no then surely that's the end of it. Same as the EU saying it might be impossible for Scotland to join it. As outsiders Scotland don't have the last say.
If those living in Scotland vote yes then best of luck to you all - you might regret it.
|
if you take the EU argument to its logical conclusion:
The United Kingdom of England Scotland and NI is in the EU.
If you say an independent Scotland has to apply to join the EU, then you also have to say the now independent Untied Kingdom of England and Ni has to reapply as well
|
If you say an independent Scotland has to apply to join the EU, then you also have to say the now independent Untied Kingdom of England and Ni has to reapply as well
I too wondered this, although my thoughts were more along the line that an independent Scotland were already a member by virtue of the joining treaty the present UK signed.
|
As long as Salmond can stir up a level of anti-English feeling, and feed a nationalist lobby, Scotland will be pandered to by the UK (which it is, is my perception).
Best perhaps if he can keep the rebellion alive without actually winning independence.
"No UK nuclear weapons on our soil" ignores the fact that the bases still represent jobs and spending power in Scotland.
The "why should Scotland be ruled from Westminster" line is just claptrap - we are all ruled from Westminster as the seat of government; England has no parallel devolved administration, while Scotland, Wales and NI continue to be represented at Westminster in addition to having their own governments; and Scotland has greater devolved powers than Wales and NI, so in that respect has the best deal of all.
Scotland's banking sector is too big for the population to underwrite, a bit like Iceland was (retail depositors here were bailed out by the UK government and bondholders dumped IIRC) so may end up being reduced in size. Perhaps the fact that Iceland seems to have shrugged that off has encouraged Salmond to think that won't happen.
Scotland doesn't leave its problems behind with the UK if it leaves, it just gets a few more to go with them.
It does have the appearance of not having been thought through, unless the agenda is not quite what it seems.
I think most people have probably formed the opinion that the agenda is for Wee Eck's benefit, rather than Scotland's. If he really wanted independence above personal aggrandisement, he would step down in favour of a more charismatic leader who might stand a chance of enchanting the voters.
|
>>If he really wanted independence above personal aggrandisement, he would step down in favour of a more charismatic leader who might stand a chance of enchanting the voters
Have you seen the main opposition?
www.tinyurl.com/labour-gila-monster
Last edited by: Lygonos on Mon 17 Feb 14 at 18:43
|
>> Have you seen the main opposition?
>>
>> www.tinyurl.com/labour-gila-monster
>>
Alex Salmond it is then
|
www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/poll-currency-row-leads-to-rise-in-yes-vote-1-3313112
Unsurprisingly, English politicians laying down law for GB/UK raises the vote for independence.
When will they ever learn?
|
|
A lot of the pro independence support at the moment comes from a "Let's kick the English" feeling. As the vote gets closer and it becomes plain there won't be a currency union and they'll have to fund their own pensions, social security, defence and all the other freebies Salmand is promising them it'll be a safe Yes. Anything else would be suicide.
|
>>As the vote gets closer and it becomes plain there won't be a currency union and they'll have to fund their own pensions, social security, defence and all the other freebies Salmand is promising them it'll be a safe Yes. Anything else would be suicide.
The economic case is not particularly strong either way.
I expect Scotland is no less economically sound than rUK (which, to be fair, isn't saying much), and is probably slightly better than the average - it is behind London and SE England but then so is every other region.
It will be a 'No' vote but more because of a 'better the devil you know' mentality.
|
"When will they ever learn?"
It's just like being a dad and dealing with a revolting spotty teenager.
|
>Unsurprisingly, English politicians laying down law for GB/UK raises the vote for independence.
>When will they ever learn?
It would never happen in Europe.
|
>> Unsurprisingly, English politicians laying down law for GB/UK raises the vote for independence.
>>
>> When will they ever learn?
>>
I wouldn't assume they don't already.
|
>> >> Unsurprisingly, English politicians laying down law for GB/UK raises the vote for independence.
>> >>
>> >> When will they ever learn?
>> >>
>>
>> I wouldn't assume they don't already.
>>
Exactly. They are all cross-dressing now.
Salmond never wanted independence, has come within a whisker of getting it none the less, but will be saved at the last moment by his countrymen who will reject it.
Most English on the other hand are heartilly sick of the whole subject and would just like to kick them out anyway.
Cameron cleverly plays it both ways.
|
>> Most English on the other hand are heartilly sick of the whole subject and would
>> just like to kick them out anyway.
>> Cameron cleverly plays it both ways.
>>
I am most definitely sick of the whole thing..and we've a while to go yet.
I think the Sweaties should remain part of the Union and we are all stronger for it as a combined nation..and it was ridiculous to offer the Independence vote in the first place, where does that end, will I eventually need a passport to enter Cornwall?
I note it was a Scottish king that arranged the Union in the first place and have no problem with the concept.
However, now that it has been offered, we should let the Jocks get on with it, it's their destiny, what will be will be, if they want out, we'll manage without them. We should though tell Salmond unequivocally that he does not dictate anything..and if he wants the pound or joint military or whatever else, he'll have to go and whistle for it.
We decide our destiny, they decide theirs...and if AS wants to go alone, then do so, but do it properly...i.e. all or nothing.
Can't see it stopping me having some fantastic holidays up there, whichever way it goes.
|
>>
>> However, now that it has been offered, we should let the Jocks get on with
>> it, it's their destiny, what will be will be, if they want out, we'll manage
>> without them. We should though tell Salmond unequivocally that he does not dictate anything..and if he wants the pound or joint military or whatever else, he'll have to go and
>> whistle for it.
>>
>>
And they can take their Curling with them. How the hell sweeping the floor ever became an Olympic event...
|
>>How the hell sweeping the floor ever became an Olympic event...
Aye, it does seem a bit daft I'd agree.
Not nearly as daft as paying some guy £300,000 a week to kick a ball though.
;-)
|
>> >>How the hell sweeping the floor ever became an Olympic event...
>>
>> Aye, it does seem a bit daft I'd agree.
>>
>> Not nearly as daft as paying some guy £300,000 a week to kick a ball
>> though.
>>
>> ;-)
Aye, if I was a jock I would try and distance myself from football as well. And Rugby.
|
And swimming.
Cannae compete when you chaps have a 200 sq mile swimming pool in your gardens.
|
>>will I eventually need a passport to enter Cornwall?
Nay laddie, just bring your wallet.
|
>> >>will I eventually need a passport to enter Cornwall?
>>
>> Nay laddie, just bring your wallet.
>>
So that I can pay to get out on the Tamar Bridge?
|
>> So that I can pay to get out on the Tamar Bridge?
Save your money and, erm, go the long way round: goo.gl/maps/QE1ey
|
Three days is a long time in politics Bromptonaut
From the Scotsman today:
"Support for a No vote has climbed five points to 49 per cent in the space of a month and now enjoys a 12-point gap over the pro-independence side, which is unchanged on 37 per cent. It suggests a significant number of undecideds have shifted to No."
It actually seems that contrary to your post English politicians laying down the facts actually reduces the vote for independence.
www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-poll-yes-losing-momentum-1-3316371
|
|
Offset of course by thousands of ex-pat Scots and their businesses flooding back to the homeland after Liberation.
|
I know my attempt at satire failed miserably a while back, but in all seriousness the dissolution of a union is a matter for all parties, surely? Certainly in the 'divorce settlement', and that position needs to be understood by all.
Salmond telling Cameron to keep his neb out does him no credit.
Though if Dave kept his gob shut, at least he wouldn't be able to get his foot in it. The common touch, he does not have.
|
>> Offset of course by thousands of ex-pat Scots and their businesses flooding back to the
>> homeland after Liberation.
>>
Or not!
I know which is the most likely scenario.
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26362321
>>
>> this is significant
Uncertainty around and potentially post referendum means a UK wide business might leave Scotland?
Here, in microcosm, is the quandary that will face Europe wide businesses based in the UK in event of referendum on/renegotiation of our membership of the EU.
|
|
Ain't that the truth, Brompters. They're not listening, though.
|
>> Ain't that the truth, Brompters. They're not listening, though.
>>
What happens if people ARE listening...yet still think that this country ought to have more say in its own affairs?
If a large company, (say Nissan), are prepared to vote with their feet and leave the UK/England if it were to leave the EU...then 'yes' that would be a negative, a huge negative.
The ideal world would for me would be a free trade Europe, not a United States of Europe. If I have to accept the loss of the Nissan's to achieve what I think is right for this country, then so be it.
Hopefully, there will be a compromise in the middle. That is in the best interests of this country, the EU and Nissan
It is most condescending to state simply 'they are not listening' ..when it could easily be the case that they are listening, very much so, but still choose to disagree with you.
|
>> If a large company, (say Nissan), are prepared to vote with their feet and leave
>> the UK/England if it were to leave the EU...then 'yes' that would be a negative,
>> a huge negative.
>>
>> The ideal world would for me would be a free trade Europe, not a United
>> States of Europe. If I have to accept the loss of the Nissan's to achieve
>> what I think is right for this country, then so be it.
>>
I suppose that begs the question, what price is worth paying?
|
>>
>> Here, in microcosm, is the quandary that will face Europe wide businesses based in the
>> UK in event of referendum on/renegotiation of our membership of the EU.
>>
It's not quite the same situation though. We don't share a currency with Europe anyway, and no one is now seriously suggesting we should. Scotland is in the reverse position - it does share a currency with UK, but is contemplating having to break away.
|
>> It's not quite the same situation though. We don't share a currency with Europe anyway,
>> and no one is now seriously suggesting we should. Scotland is in the reverse position
>> - it does share a currency with UK, but is contemplating having to break away.
No but we're part of an open market/customs union upon which a great deal of investment in this country has been predicated. If the future of that relationship is cast into doubt by an in/out referendum then those Europe wide businesses will make contingency plans similar to those made Standard Life.
|
>> No but we're part of an open market/customs union upon which a great deal of
>> investment in this country has been predicated. If the future of that relationship is cast
>> into doubt by an in/out referendum then those Europe wide businesses will make contingency plans
>> similar to those made Standard Life.
>>
All those Doomwatch scenarios were trotted out when it was "Essential" to join the ERM.
And we were going to be finished if we didn't adopt the Euro.
The former we had to leave for our own protection and thank God we stayed out of the latter. No one knows what would really happen if we baled out of the EU but we'd survive, who knows maybe even thrive.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Sun 2 Mar 14 at 18:03
|
>> All those Doomwatch scenarios were trotted out when it was "Essential" to join the ERM.
>>
>> And we were going to be finished if we didn't adopt the Euro.
>>
>> The former we had to leave for our own protection and thank God we stayed
>> out of the latter. No one knows what would really happen if we baled out
>> of the EU but we'd survive, who knows maybe even thrive.
>>
Exactly.
|
ERM/Euro are frsnkly matters of detail and judgements made in hindsight are easy.
Destabilising our entire relationship with EU seems to me several risks too far. Better to work for reform from within.
For all the furore generated over EU 'interference' in the UK I really struggle to find a single example where it's affected me personally at all, never mind in a negative way.
|
>>
>> For all the furore generated over EU 'interference' in the UK I really struggle to
>> find a single example where it's affected me personally at all, never mind in a
>> negative way.
>>
I can. A lot of my tax is funding the lifestyle of the lazy chavs who don't get any pressure to get off their backsides and work for a living because it is easier to import labour from EU countries than grasp the nettle and end the benefits culture.
|
I can give an example of meddling Eurocrats having direct influence. The third European Driving licence directive resulted in all three wheelers going from needing a car licence, to a full motorbike licence.
Anyone passing the car test after the 18th January last year is not able to drive my 1930 Morgan. They need a full motorbike licence, so will need be aged 21 or older and jumped through all the hoops of a bike licence. Apparently the UK was against this, but finding out who is responsible is very hard.
Doesn't actually affect me, but I know folk whose sons and daughters are. The silly thing is, it's a lot cheaper to insure a two or three speed Morgan three wheeler for a 17 year old than even a pretty basic car.
From a point of view of safety, you could have no car licence, work your way up though motor bikes and the first thing you drive with a steering wheel is a Morgan. You are not allowed to drive one with L plates; ever!
I am following the case, and am known to DVLC.
|
>> I can give an example of meddling Eurocrats having direct influence. The third European Driving
>> licence directive resulted in all three wheelers going from needing a car licence, to a
>> full motorbike licence.
I'd suggest that given their odd handling motorised tricycles should be a separate category. from either motorbikes or cars. Are motorised trikes a uniquely british isue?
Given that folks ran Reliants and the like for years 'cos they could drive them on a motorbike license there's a certain irony about what's followed.
|
I don't see hoards of youngsters complaining that they can't drive a three wheel morgan because they have only just got their car license.
Its not exactly a big deal is it.
|
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
And in response to Bromptonaut, just because the licensing system was a bit silly, that's no excuse for taking a sensible system and making it silly.
As far as I can determine, the ruling was made thinking about motorbikes with back axles, not cars with one wheel less. France had the Darmont, so there are other countries with something similar.
|
>> As far as I can determine, the ruling was made thinking about motorbikes with back
>> axles, not cars with one wheel less. France had the Darmont, so there are other
>> countries with something similar.
>>
I think there's some logic in the argument about axles. Pretty well all motorised trikes I see on the continent are derived from motor-bikes or use VW flat four underpinnings plus handlebars. Both the Morgan and the Reliant are (exports excepted) British eccentricities.
Either our people failed to speak up when directive was being framed or (and this is a real problem) UK government messed up/gold plated when transposing the directive into UK law.
|
Someone has investigated and it's tricky finding out what really occurred. However it wasn't in the draft directive and my understanding is the folk who wrote the draft are a bit 't'ed off. So we do have a chance in few years of a fourth European Driving Licence directive.
There is no 'gold plating', I've read the current directive and UK law is remarkably similar to the law the Netherlands passed on the same issue (Dutch laws are fairly easy to find in English). There will be a derogation to allow 21 year olds with a car licence post 19 Jan 2013 but they haven't yet enacted it.
I am however heartily fed up with the FBHVC who completely missed the issue and are now claiming credit for the use of the derogation. At the time I pointed it out to them - August 2012, they were completely unaware!
|
>> Either our people failed to speak up when directive was being framed or (and this
>> is a real problem) UK government messed up/gold plated when transposing the directive into UK
>> law.
....or..we did speak up, but no one else gave a crap, because our way of doing things doesn't matter to anyone else.
|
>> For all the furore generated over EU 'interference' in the UK I really struggle to
>> find a single example where it's affected me personally at all, never mind in a
>> negative way.
>>
Did you not have something to do with the court system?
You happy for people in Europe, from a foreign country, who have no idea of our way of life, presiding ultimately over our court system?
I'm not.
I don't mind the free trade bit, the commonality within some sensible jurisdictions, but the ultimate decision making should be made by elected people that WE in this country elect.
|
"I don't mind the free trade bit, the commonality within some sensible jurisdictions"
Which is, ISTR, what we voted for in 1973.
|
>> "I don't mind the free trade bit, the commonality within some sensible jurisdictions"
>>
>> Which is, ISTR, what we voted for in 1973.
>>
Do you mean the referendum where the country voted to join the EEC?
|
>> Do you mean the referendum where the country voted to join the EEC?
>>
I ask... because we didn't.
the referendum was, did we want to remain in the EEC... a year or so AFTER the UK joined.
IF the country had been asked BEFORE it joined whether or not the UK should join, I believe the answer would have probably be NO.
|
>> IF the country had been asked BEFORE it joined whether or not the UK should
>> join, I believe the answer would have probably be NO.
So how do you justify that given that there was a healthy majority to stay in?
|
>>
>> >> IF the country had been asked BEFORE it joined whether or not the UK should join, I believe the answer would have probably be NO.
>>
>> So how do you justify that given that there was a healthy majority to stay in?
Simple.
We had been in for just about a year, it had cost the country money to join.
It would have cost more money to leave.
Cheap option was to stay in.
But.. had the country been asked before joining, many still remembered the war.... and how certain members of the EEC had treated others.
Last edited by: swiss tony on Sun 2 Mar 14 at 22:25
|
>> >>
>> >> >> IF the country had been asked BEFORE it joined whether or not the
>> UK should join, I believe the answer would have probably be NO.
>> >>
>> >> So how do you justify that given that there was a healthy majority to
>> stay in?
>>
>> Simple.
>> We had been in for just about a year, it had cost the country money
>> to join.
>> It would have cost more money to leave.
>> Cheap option was to stay in.
No simple, the voters didn't know that
>> But.. had the country been asked before joining, many still remembered the war.... and how
>> certain members of the EEC had treated others.
So they would have voted to leave.
Sorry your argument has not a shred of proof or justification. In simple terms at that time, - if we didn't want to be in it, we would have voted to leave. You can't possibly put any other swing on it.
|
if we didn't want to be in it, we would have
>> voted to leave. You can't possibly put any other swing on it.
>>
It's really quite simple.
We thought we'd like it, but we don't. We've changed our minds.
A bit like the Scots really. They got in a bit of a mess in 1707 and decided to join the UK as an easy panacea.
Now some of them want to leave.
Easy come, easy go. There are some downsides of course to every change, you just have to weigh those up honestly in full possession of the facts, not emotions, and make your choice.
|
>> >> Do you mean the referendum where the country voted to join the EEC?
>> >>
>>
>>
>> I ask... because we didn't.
>> the referendum was, did we want to remain in the EEC... a year or so
>> AFTER the UK joined.
>>
>> IF the country had been asked BEFORE it joined whether or not the UK should
>> join, I believe the answer would have probably be NO.
>
Heath's Conservatives went into in 1970's election on a manifesto that committed them to negotiate terms to enter the EEC. It further undertook to put such terms as might successfully be negotiated to votes in Parliament. Nobody reading that could misunderstand the governments intention to go in if terms were right.
Heath won the election, against predictions, so had a mandate.
Agreed terms passed a Commons vote in October 1971 - with rebellions and abstentions on both sides of the House. Accession was formally completed on 01/01/1973.
Subsequently, and in my view wrongly, Labour went into the 74 election, committed to the same renegotiate/ referendum promise that Cameron is now offering. Like him now they hoped it might gain them some marginal votes.
'Renegotiation' having duly taken place a referendum followed. I remember it well as although I was not old enough to vote at 16 I was sufficiently politically engaged to follow the debate and arguments. The Yes and No campaigns were both cross party putting Heath and Roy Jenkins on one side and the unlikely bedfellows of Barbara Castle, Peter Shore ans Enoch Powell on No.
On a 67% turn out there was a 65% vote in favour. I don't believe for a minute that the result was peoples alarm at the cost thrown away if we pulled out. Rather, it was largely as a result of business organisation like the CBI making the economic and social consequences of No very clear and a public realisation of where the future lay.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 3 Mar 14 at 14:55
|
>>
>> On a 67% turn out there was a 65% vote in favour. I don't believe
>> for a minute that the result was peoples alarm at the cost thrown away if
>> we pulled out. Rather, it was largely as a result of business organisation like the
>> CBI making the economic and social consequences of No very clear and a public realisation of where the future lay.
I was one of those who voted to stay in, and for the same reason most others did. Heath was less than honest about the full extent of membership, the public were under the impression we were joining what was basically a trading block, not for a United States of Europe which the EU is now turning into.
|
I voted NO, as I had a very basic understanding of the, unsaid to the public, intentions of the Treaty of Rome.
That is - political and fiscal union.
The public were lied to (by omission, if nothing worse) by the devious and obnoxious "sailor" Heath and his fellow travellers.
|
>> political and fiscal union.
Which, 41 years later, still hasn't happened.
|
"Do you mean the referendum where the country voted to join the EEC?"
I think we just knew it as 'The Common market" in those days.
Looking back, I don't think that I actually voted; I was away from home and it was in the days before postal voting was generally encouraged.
|
>> Do you mean the referendum where the country voted to join the EEC?
>>
You never had a vote to join the EEC!
Unless, of course, you are, or were an MP.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 3 Mar 14 at 10:16
|
"You never had a vote to join the EEC!"
OK, so it must have been the 'staying-in' thing. To be honest, at that time, I was more concerned about other things e.g. next sex and who the hell kept nicking the ht leads off the old T21.
|
>> Did you not have something to do with the court system?
>>
>> You happy for people in Europe, from a foreign country, who have no idea of
>> our way of life, presiding ultimately over our court system?
>>
>> I'm not.
Surpsingly, their laws are very similar to ours.
|
>> I don't mind the free trade bit, the commonality within some sensible jurisdictions, but the
>> ultimate decision making should be made by elected people that WE in this country elect.
Yep, I was employed by the Lord Chancellor's Dept and its successors from 16/10/78 until 30/11/13. I don't however recognise the concept of Europeans (whatever their understanding of our way of life) presiding over our court system.
European influence extends in two pretty much separate areas. The first is about EU Law, over maters such as Directives agreed by the Council of Ministers and rules about Free Trade etc. Seem quite reasonable that these matters about a wider 'club' are decided at club level rather than via (conflicting) local decisions.
The other is about Convention rights. While submitting to them is a requirement for joining the EU they're not EU determined being part of a wider treaty to which UK signed up c1950.
The same rights are protected domestically by the much derided Human Rights Act. The Act allows convention rights to be examined/enforced by UK courts. Their effect is to give us 'constitutional rights' in sense that Yanks have them.
If a small number of contentious cases are decided on appeal by a transnational body I've no problem with that.
Not clear why anybody else has a problem. The current Government's agenda about this stuff is about REDUCING citizen's access to justice.
Why would anybody favour that?
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 4 Mar 14 at 10:20
|
European Court of Justice.
quote from Lord Hoffman, British law lord:
"unable to resist the temptation to aggrandise its jurisdiction and to impose uniform rules on Member States. It considers itself the equivalent of the Supreme Court of the United States, laying down a federal law of Europe".
Lord Hoffman considered that the ability of the court to interfere in the detail of domestic law ought to be curtailed.
...and so do I.
Last edited by: Westpig on Sun 2 Mar 14 at 22:35
|
>> European Court of Justice.
>>
>> quote from Lord Hoffman, British law lord:
>>
>> "unable to resist the temptation to aggrandise its jurisdiction and to impose uniform rules
>> on Member States. It considers itself the equivalent of the Supreme Court of the United
>> States, laying down a federal law of Europe".
>>
>> Lord Hoffman considered that the ability of the court to interfere in the detail of
>> domestic law ought to be curtailed.
>>
>> ...and so do I.
Hoffman was talking about the European Court of Human Rights (appeals on Convention Rights) rather that the ECJ (EU directives/free trade etc). Not getting at you personally WP, politicos are often pulled up or same offence, but debate is not helped when different issues are confused/conflated.
The relationship between nations and the ECHR is a dynamic one. In the past it was often unwilling to intervene (I'm thinking particularly of cases involving transsexuals). If its now gone the other way, and I respectfully disagree with Hoffman, then some nip/tuck may be required.
Overall though it and the HRA are a good thing for our liberties. Which is why Ministers (of either cheek) would like them curtailed.
|
>> Hoffman was talking about the European Court of Human Rights (appeals on Convention Rights) rather
>> that the ECJ (EU directives/free trade etc). Not getting at you personally WP, politicos are
>> often pulled up or same offence, but debate is not helped when different issues are
>> confused/conflated.
I take the point and don't mind being corrected...however....it doesn't really matter which one it is.
There should be no jurisdiction here, none at all.
We should be trading partners only and a few other bits and bobs chucked in.
We as a sovereign country should be deciding our own destiny. If we can reach that within a loose EU framework, then all well and good. If not, we need out.
|
|
You're nearly there, Westpig :-)
|
>> We as a sovereign country should be deciding our own destiny.
Frankly the way our rights are being eroded and the way we are being snooped on I could quite welcome some form of guardian.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 4 Mar 14 at 12:17
|
>> Frankly the way our rights are being eroded and the way we are being snooped
>> on I could quite welcome some form of guardian.
Which is exactly why the ECHR and its incorporation into domestic legislation by the Human Rights Act is a good thing.
|
>> we have a GB Tory Government that Scottish people didn't vote for. So if he had to try and get voters to pick his vision over Salmonds, he would be ripped apart.
Possibly true.
But the "Tory government Scotland didn't vote for" part is just claptrap for the mob. The Scots have as much say as anybody else, and some say of their own too.
Yorkshire has as big a population as Scotland, also didn't vote Tory, and doesn't have comparable devolved powers.
I didn't agree with devolution specially for Scotland and Wales when it happened and I don't now. Subsidiarity should apply equally across all of the UK.
|
P.S.
Scotland is in fact over-represented at Westminster, having about 30% more MPs than Yorkshire.
|
>> P.S.
>>
>> Scotland is in fact over-represented at Westminster, having about 30% more MPs than Yorkshire.
Tru, but to an extent that's due to remote Islands and to constituencies that are as large as practical yet sparsely populated.
Even under the Conservatives attempt to gerrymander results by standardising constituency size the Western Isles would have been an exception.
|
>
>> Even under the Conservatives attempt to gerrymander results by standardising constituency size
Bit harsh there, who's to say they weren't gerrymandered to start with?
|
>>
>> Even under the Conservatives attempt to gerrymander results by standardising constituency size
>>
A bit like gerrymandering elections by standardising the vote to one per person?
|
>> A bit like gerrymandering elections by standardising the vote to one per person?
Exactly!!!
|
If you like a bit of gerrymandering, check out the borders of the near-perennially Labour controlled Reading Borough Council, and compare them with the real extent of the town geographically. Almost half the population of the conurbation of Reading pays its council tax to Wokingham or Newbury. Gets right up my nose, for several reasons.
It's not just a Tory game, Bromptarooney.
|
>> If you like a bit of gerrymandering, check out the borders of the near-perennially Labour
>> controlled Reading Borough Council, and compare them with the real extent of the town geographically.
>> Almost half the population of the conurbation of Reading pays its council tax to Wokingham
>> or Newbury. Gets right up my nose, for several reasons.
>>
>> It's not just a Tory game, Bromptarooney.
Is that a different issue though?
Northampton is similar albeit on a smaller scale. In both cases the limits of the Borough are (presumably)historically determined as at 1973 or earlier - unless Reading changed size when going Unitary. I pay CT to South Northants, people up the road to Daventry, round the other side of town you pay to Wellingborough.
I strongly suspect that any attempt to merge Wokingham into Greater Reading would have the locals at the barricades. They considered a unitary Northampton taking in local dormitory villages - my how they squealed!!
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 4 Mar 14 at 13:27
|
What we've got here are suburbs of Reading, disconnected from Wokingham and Newbury, paying council tax to the wrong authorities because the borders of Reading BC were not redrawn when it became unitary. We were left with the old town council borders from the days when we had a County Council, purely because a re-drawing to the correct boundaries would mean defeat for Labour in local elections and a loss of it's near-permanent control over the Council.
The whole of Wokingham authority should not be merged with Reading, no. But the suburbs of Reading which are several miles from Wokingham should be. Causes all sorts of problems at the borders concerning road layouts and maintenance, bus routes etc. See also the current Sonning Bridge closure and farrago. The damaged road which needs to be rebuilt in order to get a vital bridge re-opened to get Reading's traffic back to normal actually sits in Oxfordshire, and their Council is based absolutely miles away and couldn't give a stuff.
|
What do the people living in Newbury or Wokingham's 'statelets' in Greater Reading think?
Round here a lot of the suburbs are detached from Northampton itself, albeit only my a few fields, and identify as villages. Being swallowed up administratively (and then physically) by Northampton is deeply unpopular.
Different history and geography there perhaps plus you've jumped the line to Unitary, another unpopular suggestion round here.
|
|
Most are pretty neutral to be fair, Council Tax levels are roughly the same in all three authorities. It's the petty politics and NIMBYisms it generates from the Councillors rather than the populace which is the pain in the neck. South Oxford are easily the worst of our neighbours for that, though. Cretins have been blocking a new Thames crossing for decades. It's a nose/face scenario though, as Henley (WDH) is also suffering from their own Council's intransigence, a new bridge at Reading and a Caversham bypass would help relieve their traffic nightmare also.
|
|
Don't worry, Brompto, when little Alex is in power, he will claim tracts of Northamptonshire for Scotland. Better start thinking about which side of the boundary you want to be on ;-)
|
|
Well it has got a North in the name. Near enough Scotland, really.
|
>> Well it has got a North in the name. Near enough Scotland, really.
>>
Well, using that logic, it has an 'ampton in the name. near enough london, really.
;-)
|
>> Don't worry, Brompto, when little Alex is in power, he will claim tracts of Northamptonshire
>> for Scotland. Better start thinking about which side of the boundary you want to be
>> on ;-)
>
He can have Corby - half the town's Scots anyway.
|
"He can have Corby - half the town's Scots anyway."
That's what I was referring to. Haven't they started colonising local villages yet?
|
Very good Simpsons this evening. I feel more and more that The Simpsons is perhaps the highest pinnacle ever reached by American, perhaps any, art.
Homer's geriatric dad Abe appeared at one point in a huge black fedora hat and a gangster suit. Highly reminiscent of the shot earlier this evening on some sort of news channel of the winsome Vince Cable, possibly the most intelligent, certainly the most stylishly dressed, minister in the present coalition government. Cable wore a gangster overcoat rather than suit, but same difference.
It was all about poor old Abe's entourage trying to stop him from driving just because he couldn't see properly and kept having crashes. Damn fascists if you ask me. Of course it could never happen to Mr Cable who has a gimlet eye if nothing else.
|
The Simpsons always has some depth to explore, AC. In tonight's episode, "The Old Man And The Key"' Wikipedia says this for cultural references. See if you got them all, or most, or just some.
A scene in the episode shows Grampa wearing a zoot suit, a suit popular in the 1940s. When Grampa and Zelda take off on one of their dates, three old men with long beards imitate ZZ Top as a short part of "Sharp Dressed Man" is played. Grampa's interaction with the "Souvenir Jackitos" in Apu's store mirrors a scene in the 1961 musical film West Side Story, with Grampa and his friends taking the role of the Jets in the film, the "Souvenir Jackitos" as the Sharks, and Apu as Doc. The "Death race" on the other hand, is a reference to the 1955 drama film Rebel Without a Cause. The abandoned aqueduct, in which the death race takes place, is based on the Los Angeles River. Yakov Smirnoff's appearance at a theatre in Branson, Missouri in the episode may be a reference to the fact that he owns and performs at a theatre in the city in reality. During the ending credits, the Simpsons wave goodbye while The Beverly Hillbillies theme song is playing. In fact, before the Gracie Films jingle, Lisa says in a southern accent, "This has been a Gracie Films presentation!", which parodies the line "This has been a Filmways presentation!" The beginning of the episode shows Homer excitedly preparing for the new XFL season, only to be disappointed when Marge informs him that the league folded after one year.
|
I'd vaguely prefer Scotland didn't separate, although I can't say I care that much either way.
However, does this vote mean that one way or the other, whatever the result, then we will no longer have to listen to people banging on about scotch independence ad nauseum?
And will UKIP be insisting on immigration controls?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 6 Mar 14 at 19:57
|
Naturally I got most, and some that Wikipedia and you missed, but I wasn't going to list them all in boring fashion.
If you read my post above think you will find that I think the Simpsons has a lot more to offer than 'some depth to explore'. I don't say things like that completely lightly.
|
How interesting. My post was intended to be a bit of fun to kick about something I enjoy too, but you seem to have read it as patronising. Clearly I don't communicate as well as you do.
Oh well, lesson learned. Pick your interlocutors carefully.
|
|
Jeez, take it easy Crankers. I didn't read yr post as patronising at all, just thought you were damning the Simpsons with faint praise... I will be disappointed if you drop me as an interlocutor. I can see actually why you took slight offence. My fault not yours.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 7 Mar 14 at 10:36
|
|
Mea culpa, AC. Apologies. Extraneous circumstances at time of posting spilt over from real life. Excelsior.
|
>> Mea culpa,
Ah not at all at all... extraneous circumstances affect me more than most I feel. And I was exaggerating a bit, when there are folk like Joseph Conrad and Cézanne, and things like the Parthenon and Versailles and that marble statue of Venus in the Louvre...
Anyway we are both Simpsons admirers. It's very clever and cultured stuff as well as being admirably vulgar and silly. Most of the human virtues there.
I was hoping that calling Vince Cable winsome and admiring his wardrobe would get a reaction from someone, but so far no good... have people lost heart or what?
:o}
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 7 Mar 14 at 15:20
|
>> I was hoping that calling Vince Cable winsome and admiring his wardrobe would get a
>> reaction from someone, but so far no good... have people lost heart or what?
I don't think politicians have definable qualia, they just are, filling space, a bit like people on a forum.
You could say something like "I admire that chap Cable's wardrobe", but it wouldn't mean any more than saying that you thought the producer who cast someone to play the role of Vince Cable decided that x y or z were appropriate ties for the character to wear.
The bloke who plays AC is quite good sometimes :)
|
"The bloke who plays AC is quite good sometimes :)"
Incredibly versatile -he plays Roger and Zero as well. :-)
|
|
Vince Cable is an irrelevance. Hows that for starters? :-)
|
>> an irrelevance. Hows that for starters?
Frivolous cobblers really Rastaman. He's a government minister. What sort of anarchist are you?
:o}
|
|
OK own up, whichever it is who is going to believe a politician?
|
David Cameron & Scotland - Robin O'Reliant
