Saturday 18th and Sunday 19th March 2017

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 8:03 am

Morning all. Late start today. Hope all is well yahyah, if you're looking in

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 8:46 am

Morning.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... sport-plan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Government under fire for 'cash for cabs' school transport plan

New grammar school pupils could be ferried up to 15 miles by taxi to their schools, at a cost of up to £5,000 per pupil every year, despite cuts to last year’s general school transport budget for disabled and disadvantaged pupils.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 9:12 am

http://paullewismoney.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... bonds.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

About premium bonds.
(I didn't know this,apologies if known)

ERNIE (Electronic Random Number Indicator Equipment) who draws the winning bonds each month is not a computer. However hard they try computers cannot produce genuine truly random numbers. So ERNIE uses a process which was invented by a Bletchley Park codebreaker called transistor thermal noise to create truly random events which are then counted and combined in turn into bond numbers. Every month the Government Actuary checks the prize list for randomness before the prizes are paid.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 9:44 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-39309133" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gordon Brown: 'Holyrood should gain Brexit powers'

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 10:00 am

Good morfternoon.

Post by **adam** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 10:04 am

HindleA wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-39309133

Gordon Brown: 'Holyrood should gain Brexit powers'

Because the assurances made about that kind of thing paid off so well last time?

Not a pop at you, obviously.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 10:07 am

OBR forcast of 4.1% inflation by Christmas and other things

http://paullewismoney.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... stmas.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 10:13 am

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/ ... tributions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

New bombshell for self-employed: pay 400% more NICs … or lose state pension
Despite the chancellor’s NICs U-turn, those who earn below £6,000 still face a five-fold increase – unless the government acts before next year

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 10:15 am

adam wrote:
HindleA wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-39309133

Gordon Brown: 'Holyrood should gain Brexit powers'
Because the assurances made about that kind of thing paid off so well last time?

Not a pop at you, obviously.

I have a enduring respect for the man, despite his obvious weaknesses

His credibility, however, is shot and he doesn't seem to have the self-awareness to see that

he was shafted by the Tories and that is what endures

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 10:21 am

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... CMP=twt_gu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A letter to … The man who insulted my brother, who has cerebral palsy

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 10:24 am

https://www.theguardian.com/public-lead ... CMP=twt_gu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am a legal aid lawyer for people facing eviction

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 10:32 am

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017 ... power.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mainlymacro

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 10:34 am

Just the headline on the G website.
'There may be a way to avoid the breakup of the UK'

How has it come to this?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 10:35 am

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -sex-crime" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The ‘rape rule’ for tax credits tramples the rights of children it’s meant to protect
Susanna Rustin

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 10:42 am

HindleA wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-39309133

Gordon Brown: 'Holyrood should gain Brexit powers'

On the subject of devolution, I came across this the other day

Taking back control in the North: A council of the North and other ideas
http://www.ippr.org/publications/taking ... -the-north" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The north in this context is the north-west, north-east and yorkshire & humber regions, he reckons only Chesterfield would be controversial on the boundary?!

Not sure about some of the detail but the general idea makes much more sense to me than Osborne's city regions.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 10:47 am

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/ ... tributions

New bombshell for self-employed: pay 400% more NICs … or lose state pension
Despite the chancellor’s NICs U-turn, those who earn below £6,000 still face a five-fold increase – unless the government acts before next year

It's so weird this is suddenly making headlines now as this must have been known since Osborne abolished level 2 NICs in 2015, yet has generally been glossed over until now.

The other thing that's confusing me is that according to this article, employed people earning less than the LEL threshold in all jobs were already having to purchase level 3 NICs at approx £700 a year as is being complained self-employed people will soon need to do. Is this also something Osborne introduced, or was it always more expensive for those not self-employed to buy NICs credits?

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/expe ... ay-NI.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Even if you are not earning enough to pay National Insurance and do not qualify for credits you can still take action to protect your National Insurance record.
There is a voluntary category of National Insurance Contributions called ‘Class 3’ and the cost of Class 3 contributions is currently £14.10 per week.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 10:49 am

gilsey wrote:Just the headline on the G website.
'There may be a way to avoid the breakup of the UK'

How has it come to this?

The Great British Public in certain key seats listened to the Tories and their media proponents and decided that unfettered Toryism with Cameron was their chosen option - helped on their way be seemingly unconstrained spending in key seats

The die was cast in May 2015......all from them could have been predicted more or less if we had actually understood how incompetent Cameron and Osborne actually were

For some reason though the Tories are even more popular and the GBP does not seem to be embracing the key messages fed to them by the Tories and their friends in the press, now even more blatant

Others take small shares of the blame, Labour and the LD for not scrutinising the referendum bill closer, Corbyn for poor communication, Miliband for allowing the financial crisis to be blamed on Labour and triangulating too much, the PLP for being more interested in launching coups than challenging the Tories, the LD for propping up the Tories and the SNP (but that is their raison d'être to be honest) etc etc (can also include the SLP for losing Scotland, Blair for ensuring the good things done by his Government are forgotten thanks to his hubris...)

But we aremainly here because of the Tories, particularly Cameron, Osborne, May, Johnson and Gove - abetted by their friends.

Never forget that!

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 10:53 am

hsom, yes to all that, but I meant something simpler.

A national newspaper has that as a headline on its front page. I just think it's remarkable.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 10:57 am

As with other reforms,particularly regarding social security,note the "horror" of non scrutiny,except it was written into the Welfare Reduction Act to so bypass ,it only becomes newsworthy either at the far too late stage or when the bodies start mounting up and personalised stories.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 10:57 am

HindleA wrote:https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017 ... power.html

Mainlymacro

The most recent misjudgement by MPs was over Brexit. Again Corbyn gets all the attention, but it was the majority of MPs that decided they should focus on the challenge from UKIP and vote to give May total authority over the negotiations. I think this misjudgement epitomised almost a decade of bad decisions all of which involved an element of appeasement.

Do you think that's right?

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 10:58 am

HindleA wrote:https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017 ... power.html

Mainlymacro

One of his better articles and he poses some interesting questions

Obviously, being to the left of him, and being more sympathetic to Corbyn I do not agree with all his conclusions by any means

I think the difficulty of this expectation of a 'Macron-type' is that we do not have the Presidential system that allows this type of intervention

Our PM will have to come from the ranks of the PLP and we have seen there are no clear candidates at the moment. There could be an attempt to parachute in someone such as Miliband Snr but that would be a bit of a disaster in my view

I think Labour should settle down and stop fighting internally and look to who there at the moment could develop into a leader over the next few years - I like Starmer (does he suffer from the same problem as Miliband in being too academic and cerebral?) and perhaps Lewis could get there. Raynor as well. Maybe there is someone the right would like to suggest - all we see from that wing of the party are the loudmouths who are completely unsuitable

If people like Cooper and others could come in and support the leadership and help mentor others to take over then there may be some hope

A less polarised vote between the new generation when Corbyn decide to stand down - I think we know which wing would win but a less fraught campaign may help to bring some unity

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 11:01 am

gilsey wrote:
HindleA wrote:https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017 ... power.html

Mainlymacro

The most recent misjudgement by MPs was over Brexit. Again Corbyn gets all the attention, but it was the majority of MPs that decided they should focus on the challenge from UKIP and vote to give May total authority over the negotiations. I think this misjudgement epitomised almost a decade of bad decisions all of which involved an element of appeasement.
Do you think that's right?

I am not sure it was the majority but a vocal minority did come out after the referendum and started a focus on immigration - a not insignificant few stating the the liberal immigration policy that Corbyn instinctively supports was losing the party votes

At the same time he was being told he wasn't strongly enough for Remain due to his lukewarm approach to the Single Market economic rules

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 11:02 am

gilsey wrote:hsom, yes to all that, but I meant something simpler.

A national newspaper has that as a headline on its front page. I just think it's remarkable.

Haha.....sorry got on soapbox

Indeed - in total agreement

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 11:21 am

howsillyofme1 wrote:
HindleA wrote:https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017 ... power.html

Mainlymacro

One of his better articles and he poses some interesting questions

Obviously, being to the left of him, and being more sympathetic to Corbyn I do not agree with all his conclusions by any means

I think the difficulty of this expectation of a 'Macron-type' is that we do not have the Presidential system that allows this type of intervention

Our PM will have to come from the ranks of the PLP and we have seen there are no clear candidates at the moment. There could be an attempt to parachute in someone such as Miliband Snr but that would be a bit of a disaster in my view

I think Labour should settle down and stop fighting internally and look to who there at the moment could develop into a leader over the next few years - I like Starmer (does he suffer from the same problem as Miliband in being too academic and cerebral?) and perhaps Lewis could get there. Raynor as well. Maybe there is someone the right would like to suggest - all we see from that wing of the party are the loudmouths who are completely unsuitable

If people like Cooper and others could come in and support the leadership and help mentor others to take over then there may be some hope

A less polarised vote between the new generation when Corbyn decide to stand down - I think we know which wing would win but a less fraught campaign may help to bring some unity

Poor old SWL still doesn't understand the agenda of McDonnell etc. Perhaps because of his own role in helping it.

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 11:46 am

adam wrote:
HindleA wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-39309133

Gordon Brown: 'Holyrood should gain Brexit powers'
Because the assurances made about that kind of thing paid off so well last time?

Not a pop at you, obviously.

Has Scotland - as opposed to the SNP - asked for more powers? The suggestions in the article seem to me to be borne of a fear of another referendum rather than any rational development of the UK as a whole.
It seems crazy to suggest that VAT should be different in different parts of a single country (the UK). A bureaucratic nightmare imo.
I was under the impression that Scotland already controlled agriculture and fisheries. If not, what has the Department of Agriculture & Fisheries for Scotland (and its successors) been doing since 1938? (And why does Scotland have fishery protection vessels)?
The Bank of England is not the Bank of England, Scotland, Wales & NI - It is the Bank of UK.
As for letting Sturgeon sign international treaties...

A policy of appeasement worked so well for Neville Chamberlain, let's try it again with Scottish Nationalists!

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 11:58 am

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... 1997to2016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Housing affordability in England and Wales: 1997 to 2016

Interactive map-eg.here 3.6 to 7.4 times earnings.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 12:02 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
adam wrote:
HindleA wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-39309133

Gordon Brown: 'Holyrood should gain Brexit powers'
Because the assurances made about that kind of thing paid off so well last time?

Not a pop at you, obviously.

I have a enduring respect for the man, despite his obvious weaknesses

His credibility, however, is shot and he doesn't seem to have the self-awareness to see that

he was shafted by the Tories and that is what endures

He should have stood for the SLab leadership when Lamont resigned - its one of the few things I can think of that might have saved them from utter marginalisation.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 12:09 pm

Welcome to the United States of Britain, a mini replica of the United States of America.

Every new policy in this country under the Conservatives has frightening echoes of how things are done on the other side of the Pond. Food banks and food vouchers. Elected PCC's. The new proposals for GPs in A&Es, no doubt soon the only choice for those who can't afford to pay to see a private GP, as with the second class NHS service with dentists and opticians. It may just be a tiny tweak here and a tiny tweak there, but the ultimate direction seems clear.

Devolution, federalisation. How long before we have our own bankrupt cities just like our American cousins? Because the only real reason to fragment is to ensure the wealthy areas get to keep more of their wealth to themselves and central government is let off the hook for the disintegration of poorer regions - it's up to them to solve their own problems, right?

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 12:33 pm

Eric_WLothian wrote:
adam wrote:
HindleA wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-39309133

Gordon Brown: 'Holyrood should gain Brexit powers'
Because the assurances made about that kind of thing paid off so well last time?

Not a pop at you, obviously.
Has Scotland - as opposed to the SNP - asked for more powers? The suggestions in the article seem to me to be borne of a fear of another referendum rather than any rational development of the UK as a whole.
It seems crazy to suggest that VAT should be different in different parts of a single country (the UK). A bureaucratic nightmare imo.
I was under the impression that Scotland already controlled agriculture and fisheries. If not, what has the Department of Agriculture & Fisheries for Scotland (and its successors) been doing since 1938? (And why does Scotland have fishery protection vessels)?
The Bank of England is not the Bank of England, Scotland, Wales & NI - It is the Bank of UK.
As for letting Sturgeon sign international treaties...

A policy of appeasement worked so well for Neville Chamberlain, let's try it again with Scottish Nationalists!

I don't think that comparison is particularly fair to be honest

I think the SNP have every right to campaign for a referendum and, if they have a majority in Scottish Parliament, to call for one

I see the issue being somewhat different though and, again, it is based on Tory incompetence

Any constitutional change of this magnitude, that cannot be overturned by a future generation, has to go to a super majority

The Scottish referendum 2014 and the Brexit referendum should have had to pass either a Parliamentary super majority (2/3) or a much more demanding referendum than a simple majority (remeber Scottish Independence referendum 1979)

Even if there is a majority for independence then it is probably no likely to meet the criteria of a super majority in any form - and if it did then it should be allowed

By not having this debate prior ro 2014 or 2016 it would make any such requirement for a future Scottish Independence Referendum look anomalous

I do not think the SNP would even be considering a referendum if it was run under any more terms more exacting than a simple majority

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 1:01 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
HindleA wrote:https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017 ... power.html

Mainlymacro

One of his better articles and he poses some interesting questions

Obviously, being to the left of him, and being more sympathetic to Corbyn I do not agree with all his conclusions by any means

I think the difficulty of this expectation of a 'Macron-type' is that we do not have the Presidential system that allows this type of intervention

Our PM will have to come from the ranks of the PLP and we have seen there are no clear candidates at the moment. There could be an attempt to parachute in someone such as Miliband Snr but that would be a bit of a disaster in my view

I think Labour should settle down and stop fighting internally and look to who there at the moment could develop into a leader over the next few years - I like Starmer (does he suffer from the same problem as Miliband in being too academic and cerebral?) and perhaps Lewis could get there. Raynor as well. Maybe there is someone the right would like to suggest - all we see from that wing of the party are the loudmouths who are completely unsuitable

If people like Cooper and others could come in and support the leadership and help mentor others to take over then there may be some hope

A less polarised vote between the new generation when Corbyn decide to stand down - I think we know which wing would win but a less fraught campaign may help to bring some unity
Poor old SWL still doesn't understand the agenda of McDonnell etc. Perhaps because of his own role in helping it.

I'm sure he appreciates you patronising him

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 1:35 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote: I'm sure he appreciates you patronising him

His naivety deserves nothing less. no doubt an important economist, but his political judgement is woeful. It is the level of a first year undergraduate.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 1:39 pm

Wren-Lewis doesn't seem to consider why altering the balance of power so far in the favour of members and away from MPs may not be desirable in its own right, when considered in isolation from the current internal power struggle.

Other parties seek a similar balance of interests. For instance the Lindem's:

Article 10.5 of the Liberal Democrat constitution[7] requires that any candidate wishing to stand must be a Member of Parliament and must have the support of:

"at least ten percent of other members of the Parliamentary Party in the House of Commons" (ie one other MP at present); and
"[be] supported by 200 members in aggregate in not less than 20 Local Parties"

Rules governing a party shouldn't be changed to get rid of someone or to ensure someone gets on the ballot. Ed Miliband changed the rules in good faith, to try to make the party more democratic. The system he came up with is far from ideal, but it attempted to strike a balance in the way the Libdem rules attempt to strike a balance. The 15% rule ensured only those candidates MPs had faith in would be put to members to vote on. MPs failed to appreciate the significance of nominating someone they had no faith in, but I see no reason why Ed Miliband could have foreseen this, as it makes little sense. Personally I think 5% is too low a threshold.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 1:41 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote: I'm sure he appreciates you patronising him
His naivety deserves nothing less. no doubt an important economist, but his political judgement is woeful. It is the level of a first year undergraduate.

Millenial winner of the 'Most Lacking in Self-Awareness Post'

I can only assume someone has hacked your account because I doubt even you would post something so manifestly arrogant and patronising!

No scrub that....I can imagine you would post that

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 1:51 pm

Willow904 wrote:Wren-Lewis doesn't seem to consider why altering the balance of power so far in the favour of members and away from MPs may not be desirable in its own right, when considered in isolation from the current internal power struggle.

Other parties seek a similar balance of interests. For instance the Lindem's:

Article 10.5 of the Liberal Democrat constitution[7] requires that any candidate wishing to stand must be a Member of Parliament and must have the support of:

"at least ten percent of other members of the Parliamentary Party in the House of Commons" (ie one other MP at present); and
"[be] supported by 200 members in aggregate in not less than 20 Local Parties"
Rules governing a party shouldn't be changed to get rid of someone or to ensure someone gets on the ballot. Ed Miliband changed the rules in good faith, to try to make the party more democratic. The system he came up with is far from ideal, but it attempted to strike a balance in the way the Libdem rules attempt to strike a balance. The 15% rule ensured only those candidates MPs had faith in would be put to members to vote on. MPs failed to appreciate the significance of nominating someone they had no faith in, but I see no reason why Ed Miliband could have foreseen this, as it makes little sense. Personally I think 5% is too low a threshold.

I think that 5% is too low as well but the current system is an issue due to the gap between the PLP and the membership

The only way for this to be resolved is a rapprochement from the two sides - the PLP to stop undermining the leader and accept him as being the rightful leader - stop this continual sniping and briefing. The membership should stop threatening deselections all over the place

I have no answer on how to solve it all but some of the elder statesmen in the party such as Ed Miliband who I think is pretty well-respected by the sensible politicians on both sides will have a part to play

All sides have to compromise but one thing is a given - Jeremy Corbyn is the elected leader and that is not going to change no matter how many leadership elections are organised

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 2:00 pm

I'm still wondering if there's a polling threshold below which Corbyn can't survive, though.

I think 23% in the polls could be hard to shrug off, regardless of internal politics - and it is internal. How many of the wider potential Labour vote see anything other than a poor leader with little support clinging on? Corbyn and McDonnell may see things in a way which makes polling irrelevant, but I doubt Len McCluskey does and as AK said the other day, his support for the current leadership team is important. I don't think Corbyn can afford to be too casual about sliding poll ratings, however loyal the membership may be.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 2:06 pm

Willow904 wrote:I'm still wondering if there's a polling threshold below which Corbyn can't survive, though.

I think 23% in the polls could be hard to shrug off, regardless of internal politics - and it is internal. How many of the wider potential Labour vote see anything other than a poor leader with little support clinging on? Corbyn and McDonnell may see things in a way which makes polling irrelevant, but I doubt Len McCluskey does and as AK said the other day, his support for the current leadership team is important. I don't think Corbyn can afford to be too casual about sliding poll ratings, however loyal the membership may be.

Perhaps but not guaranteed - and there needs to be a replacement as well

This time last year the Labour Party was just about equal with the Tories in the polls with Corbyn as the leader.....the council elections in May were not to bad either...in fact in some parts of the country they went well

I know who I blame for the troubles since then and if Corbyn is forced out due to poor polling then I would also be asking for a lot of MPs to be following him out of the door - deselection time!

Gloves will be off at that point

Any change over of leader would have to be well managed to prevent the membership getting very angry

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 2:15 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
Eric_WLothian wrote: Has Scotland - as opposed to the SNP - asked for more powers? The suggestions in the article seem to me to be borne of a fear of another referendum rather than any rational development of the UK as a whole.
It seems crazy to suggest that VAT should be different in different parts of a single country (the UK). A bureaucratic nightmare imo.
I was under the impression that Scotland already controlled agriculture and fisheries. If not, what has the Department of Agriculture & Fisheries for Scotland (and its successors) been doing since 1938? (And why does Scotland have fishery protection vessels)?
The Bank of England is not the Bank of England, Scotland, Wales & NI - It is the Bank of UK.
As for letting Sturgeon sign international treaties...

A policy of appeasement worked so well for Neville Chamberlain, let's try it again with Scottish Nationalists!

I don't think that comparison is particularly fair to be honest

I think the SNP have every right to campaign for a referendum and, if they have a majority in Scottish Parliament, to call for one

I see the issue being somewhat different though and, again, it is based on Tory incompetence

Any constitutional change of this magnitude, that cannot be overturned by a future generation, has to go to a super majority

The Scottish referendum 2014 and the Brexit referendum should have had to pass either a Parliamentary super majority (2/3) or a much more demanding referendum than a simple majority (remeber Scottish Independence referendum 1979)

Even if there is a majority for independence then it is probably no likely to meet the criteria of a super majority in any form - and if it did then it should be allowed

By not having this debate prior ro 2014 or 2016 it would make any such requirement for a future Scottish Independence Referendum look anomalous

I do not think the SNP would even be considering a referendum if it was run under any more terms more exacting than a simple majority

I agree entirely that there should have been a super-majority requirement in both referenda. However, one thing is certain - if the UK government impose one on any future indyref, the SNP will shout foul!

The SNP have every right to campaign for what they want but Sturgeon is talking as the FM of the SG (not the Scottish people). Both sides in the 2014 referendum agreed to abide by the result - no ifs or buts. Brexit makes no difference - Scotland would be out of the EU either as part of the UK or as an independent country.

Both sides of the Scottish referendum debate are agreed on one thing: it is a once-in-a-lifetime issue. David Cameron underlined this message on Tuesday when he told people in Scotland independence would be a "painful divorce". Alex Salmond pledged there would be no second referendum for "a generation", even if he lost by one vote.
The Edinburgh agreement, signed by the UK and the Scottish governments, was aimed at producing a "fair and decisive outcome". Each party has made clear they will abide by the result, even if it is 50% either way plus a single vote.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2 ... urn false;

Devolution worked under the Lab/Lib coalitions at Holyrood, which got on reasonably well with Westminster. Whether that would still apply with the Tories in charge of the UK is a moot point.
The country is floundering under the grievance-driven SNP and imo, giving them more powers would be a disaster for both Scotland and the UK.

Edited to add that the simple solution is for the Greens to vote against the minority SNP in Holyrood.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 2:18 pm

Well, I was kind of thinking of a scenario where McCluskey changed allegiance, taking union votes with him, so in that situation the replacement would come from the left.

Just mulling over Wren-Lewis' article really and thinking maybe there are possible (though not necessarily probable) alternative developments he hasn't really considered.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 2:23 pm

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Labour led in 4 polls pre-EU ref, never by more than 3.

In February 2016 alone, the Tories led in 6, never less than by 6 points.

Labour was level in 1 poll on 25th June 2016. The Tories had led in the previous 16.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 2:24 pm

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Lebedev

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 2:28 pm

Eric_WLothian wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
Eric_WLothian wrote: Has Scotland - as opposed to the SNP - asked for more powers? The suggestions in the article seem to me to be borne of a fear of another referendum rather than any rational development of the UK as a whole.
It seems crazy to suggest that VAT should be different in different parts of a single country (the UK). A bureaucratic nightmare imo.
I was under the impression that Scotland already controlled agriculture and fisheries. If not, what has the Department of Agriculture & Fisheries for Scotland (and its successors) been doing since 1938? (And why does Scotland have fishery protection vessels)?
The Bank of England is not the Bank of England, Scotland, Wales & NI - It is the Bank of UK.
As for letting Sturgeon sign international treaties...

A policy of appeasement worked so well for Neville Chamberlain, let's try it again with Scottish Nationalists!

I don't think that comparison is particularly fair to be honest

I think the SNP have every right to campaign for a referendum and, if they have a majority in Scottish Parliament, to call for one

I see the issue being somewhat different though and, again, it is based on Tory incompetence

Any constitutional change of this magnitude, that cannot be overturned by a future generation, has to go to a super majority

The Scottish referendum 2014 and the Brexit referendum should have had to pass either a Parliamentary super majority (2/3) or a much more demanding referendum than a simple majority (remeber Scottish Independence referendum 1979)

Even if there is a majority for independence then it is probably no likely to meet the criteria of a super majority in any form - and if it did then it should be allowed

By not having this debate prior ro 2014 or 2016 it would make any such requirement for a future Scottish Independence Referendum look anomalous

I do not think the SNP would even be considering a referendum if it was run under any more terms more exacting than a simple majority
I agree entirely that there should have been a super-majority requirement in both referenda. However, one thing is certain - if the UK government impose one on any future indyref, the SNP will shout foul!

The SNP have every right to campaign for what they want but Sturgeon is talking as the FM of the SG (not the Scottish people). Both sides in the 2014 referendum agreed to abide by the result - no ifs or buts. Brexit makes no difference - Scotland would be out of the EU either as part of the UK or as an independent country.

Both sides of the Scottish referendum debate are agreed on one thing: it is a once-in-a-lifetime issue. David Cameron underlined this message on Tuesday when he told people in Scotland independence would be a "painful divorce". Alex Salmond pledged there would be no second referendum for "a generation", even if he lost by one vote.
The Edinburgh agreement, signed by the UK and the Scottish governments, was aimed at producing a "fair and decisive outcome". Each party has made clear they will abide by the result, even if it is 50% either way plus a single vote.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2 ... urn false;

Devolution worked under the Lab/Lib coalitions at Holyrood, which got on reasonably well with Westminster. Whether that would still apply with the Tories in charge of the UK is a moot point.
The country is floundering under the grievance-driven SNP and imo, giving them more powers would be a disaster for both Scotland and the UK.

Edited to add that the simple solution is for the Greens to vote against the minority SNP in Holyrood.

Gordon Brown makes some compelling points as always but I must confess I'm finding your arguments more persuasive. More devolved power isn't the answer. More central power would be better. An upper house made up of regional representatives would be a better way forward if the UK is to properly thrive as a whole. As Ed Miliband proposed back in 2015. The country jumped the wrong way back then and now we're in quite a hole.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 2:34 pm

Good-afternoon

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 2:38 pm

Eric_WLothian wrote:
adam wrote:
HindleA wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-39309133

Gordon Brown: 'Holyrood should gain Brexit powers'
Because the assurances made about that kind of thing paid off so well last time?

Not a pop at you, obviously.
Has Scotland - as opposed to the SNP - asked for more powers? The suggestions in the article seem to me to be borne of a fear of another referendum rather than any rational development of the UK as a whole.
It seems crazy to suggest that VAT should be different in different parts of a single country (the UK). A bureaucratic nightmare imo.
I was under the impression that Scotland already controlled agriculture and fisheries. If not, what has the Department of Agriculture & Fisheries for Scotland (and its successors) been doing since 1938? (And why does Scotland have fishery protection vessels)?
The Bank of England is not the Bank of England, Scotland, Wales & NI - It is the Bank of UK.
As for letting Sturgeon sign international treaties...

A policy of appeasement worked so well for Neville Chamberlain, let's try it again with Scottish Nationalists!

May and Davidson talked about the repatriated EU powers (as indeed they properly are with Fishing and Farming) going to the UK government. It seemed to set the SNP off big time. I thought their stance was odd- as you say, the UK level power were already devolved- but I wonder now if it was a cunning plan, ahead of the SNP Conference, to make Sturgeon overplay her hand.

I thought before that iScotland joining the EU would be a feather in the EU's cap, but now I'm not so sure. The big deal is the Brexit negotiation. You can easily imagine a situation where the UK government is trying to get out of its Hard Brexit and swallowing humble pie, but wants something in return. Now if May said, can you help me with Scotland?, would the EU really refuse? I reckon they'd happily come out with something to deter Scottish independence, in order to do the big deal with the UK. Sorry, problems with the currency, the budget, would need to join the Euro ASAP, no opt outs at all etc.

Does that make sense? The SNP were undeprepared last time for the backlash from other countries with separatists of their own. Maybe they're still overestimating good will towards them?

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 2:42 pm

Willow904 wrote: Gordon Brown makes some compelling points as always but I must confess I'm finding your arguments more persuasive. More devolved power isn't the answer. More central power would be better. An upper house made up of regional representatives would be a better way forward if the UK is to properly thrive as a whole. As Ed Miliband proposed back in 2015. The country jumped the wrong way back then and now we're in quite a hole.

There is another huge problem with devolved power - the SG can use it however it pleases. The original intention was that the Scottish Parliament would not have any one party in overall charge and that bills would be scrutinised by a system of committees. This doesn't work with a single party government - they've simply taken over the important committees.
One solution might be to involve a Scottish subsection of the HoL to scrutinise Holyrood bills - but I doubt whether it will happen.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 2:44 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2

Labour led in 4 polls pre-EU ref, never by more than 3.

In February 2016 alone, the Tories led in 6, never less than by 6 points.

Labour was level in 1 poll on 25th June 2016. The Tories had led in the previous 16.

Yes, but mostly by fairly modest margins.

"Labour were level/ahead in the polls before the coup" is indeed a myth, but the claim it made no significant difference is if anything more of one.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 2:49 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2

Labour led in 4 polls pre-EU ref, never by more than 3.

In February 2016 alone, the Tories led in 6, never less than by 6 points.

Labour was level in 1 poll on 25th June 2016. The Tories had led in the previous 16.

And this has nothing to do with the fact that Labour had lost an election in 2015 has it?

The predictions of by-election losses and collapse in the Local Elections didn't transpire though

The real issues started post referendum

I am not going to debate this with you again though.....bored of it

You are not even a Labour supporter anymore

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 2:52 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2

Labour led in 4 polls pre-EU ref, never by more than 3.

In February 2016 alone, the Tories led in 6, never less than by 6 points.

Labour was level in 1 poll on 25th June 2016. The Tories had led in the previous 16.
Yes, but mostly by fairly modest margins.

"Labour were level/ahead in the polls before the coup" is indeed a myth, but the claim it made no significant difference is if anything more of one.

I would like to say I said that Labour was around level, not ahead....with differences often being in MoE and there had also been significant methodology changes post May 2015

The situation was nowhere like it is now

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 3:02 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2

Labour led in 4 polls pre-EU ref, never by more than 3.

In February 2016 alone, the Tories led in 6, never less than by 6 points.

Labour was level in 1 poll on 25th June 2016. The Tories had led in the previous 16.
Yes, but mostly by fairly modest margins.

"Labour were level/ahead in the polls before the coup" is indeed a myth, but the claim it made no significant difference is if anything more of one.

The coup happened at the same time as the EU referendum. It's impossible to say whether support has dipped because of the first or due to Labour's response to the latter.

I don't know if Corbyn has commissioned any surveys to try to find out. I expect the Labour leadership know more than the rest of us. What are they going to do about it, that's the thing. Blaming others is an explanation, not a plan. What's the plan?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 3:07 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2

Labour led in 4 polls pre-EU ref, never by more than 3.

In February 2016 alone, the Tories led in 6, never less than by 6 points.

Labour was level in 1 poll on 25th June 2016. The Tories had led in the previous 16.
Yes, but mostly by fairly modest margins.

"Labour were level/ahead in the polls before the coup" is indeed a myth, but the claim it made no significant difference is if anything more of one.

With half of the Tories the public recognizing on TV every night, calling the PM a liar, that the Tories led at all was appalling.

Corbyn staying on after losing the vote of confidence by an absolute street is what did the damage.

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Sat 18 Mar, 2017 3:08 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:[quote="Eric_WLothian
Has Scotland - as opposed to the SNP - asked for more powers? The suggestions in the article seem to me to be borne of a fear of another referendum rather than any rational development of the UK as a whole.
It seems crazy to suggest that VAT should be different in different parts of a single country (the UK). A bureaucratic nightmare imo.
I was under the impression that Scotland already controlled agriculture and fisheries. If not, what has the Department of Agriculture & Fisheries for Scotland (and its successors) been doing since 1938? (And why does Scotland have fishery protection vessels)?
The Bank of England is not the Bank of England, Scotland, Wales & NI - It is the Bank of UK.
As for letting Sturgeon sign international treaties...

A policy of appeasement worked so well for Neville Chamberlain, let's try it again with Scottish Nationalists!

May and Davidson talked about the repatriated EU powers (as indeed they properly are with Fishing and Farming) going to the UK government. It seemed to set the SNP off big time. I thought their stance was odd- as you say, the UK level power were already devolved- but I wonder now if it was a cunning plan, ahead of the SNP Conference, to make Sturgeon overplay her hand.

I thought before that iScotland joining the EU would be a feather in the EU's cap, but now I'm not so sure. The big deal is the Brexit negotiation. You can easily imagine a situation where the UK government is trying to get out of its Hard Brexit and swallowing humble pie, but wants something in return. Now if May said, can you help me with Scotland?, would the EU really refuse? I reckon they'd happily come out with something to deter Scottish independence, in order to do the big deal with the UK. Sorry, problems with the currency, the budget, would need to join the Euro ASAP, no opt outs at all etc.

Does that make sense? The SNP were undeprepared last time for the backlash from other countries with separatists of their own. Maybe they're still overestimating good will towards them?[/quote]

Devolution is something of a red herring with regards to agriculture and fishing - it was the responsibility of the Scottish Office long before 1999.

EU subsidies go, of course, to the UK government, which allocates an appropriate amount to Scotland. I assume that the UK would simply go back to the pre-EU system of allocating funding to Scotland from UK revenues.
Fishing has always been a sore point with the SNP. They say that Scottish fishing rights were sold out to the EU - and particularly Spain. (I don't know the ins and outs). I would have thought that Brexit would solve that problem - again reverting to pre-EU rules.

I don't see any reason why there should be any particular display of good will towards an iScotland. There are, as you say, rules for new countries joining (stability, a central bank, maximum deficit etc etc) which Scotland would not meet - at least initially. Remember Salmond's 'legal advice' which he never had? The official EU stance was always iScotland joins the queue and is treated the same as any other applicant.

Sorry - screwed up the quotes there but just heading out for the evening.