The 'Take it Outside' thread This thread will no longer be moderated *** Showing 651-700 of 5,982

[Will]

I have just seen that in Angela Merkel's press conference on Greece, the German Finance Minister has said:

It is not acceptable for a member state to have a government with a completely different political ideaology.

If what is reported is accurate that has just determined my NO vote in the EU referendum.

[Marc]

ideology Will! Would that any of them had the shred of an idea between them, or in Maureen Lipman's BT ads of old, 'an ology, she's got an ology!'

[Jim]

Will wrote: "I have just seen that in Angela Merkel's press conference on Greece, the German Finance Minister has said:

It is not acceptable for a member state to have a government with a completely different political ideaology.

If what is reported is accurate that has just determined my NO vote in the EU referendum.

I decided that when they got rid of the last Greek President and the last Italian President and in the latter case put one of their own in. In Mario Monti they chose someone who'd never faced an election

[Jim]

Will wrote: "I have just seen that in Angela Merkel's press conference on Greece, the German Finance Minister has said:

It is not acceptable for a member state to have a government with a completely different ..."

I decided that when they got rid of the last Greek President and the last Italian President and in the latter case put one of their own in. In Mario Monti they chose someone who'd never faced an election

[Jim]

R.M.F wrote: " Would anybody really miss the Labour party if they were to disappear? Bear with on this one.

In Scotland, until recently, Labour have ruled the roost since World War Two.

In that time, we had corruption, cronyism on an industrial scale, nepotism etc etc You would not believe it. It was sickening at times. ..."

Mark Twain said “Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason.”

[R.M.F.]

Jim wrote: "R.M.F wrote: " Would anybody really miss the Labour party if they were to disappear? Bear with on this one.

In Scotland, until recently, Labour have ruled the roost since World War Two.

In that..."

There's desperately a pressing need for a new, invigorated, centre-left party, but Labour it ain't. They're well past their sell-by date.

Anyway, England, do not despair - your history is full of reformers: Chartists, suffragettes, levellers, diggers, Wat Tyler, et al...

[Jim]

R.M.F wrote: "There's desperately a pressing need for a new, invigorated, centre-left party, but Labour it ain't. They're well past their sell-by date.

Anyway, England, do not despair - your history is full of reformers: Chartists, suffragettes, levellers, diggers, Wat Tyler, et al... ..."


reform is always best when it bubbles up from within a society rather than being a bright idea from outside imposed from above

[Marc]

BBc article on complex referenda questions versus simple ones with a couple of historical examples of skewing the referenda from Pinochet & Hitler - fascinating

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europ...

[R.M.F.]

Just been watching the SNP's amendments getting voted down by Labour and the Tories in parliament. The Tories are backing-tracking on powers promised in the Smith Commission, something the Conservatives signed up too..

It's like Irish Home rule all over again...

[R.M.F.]

And another thing, what's happened to the Labour party. They've been wiped out in Scotland and in 2016, they're facing another wipeout at the Scottish Parliament elections.

In England, Call Me Dave is rushing EVEL through parliament, something that will benefit the Tories for years, and screw Labour...and yet...Labour are hand in glove with the Tories on this one.

Labour, what are you doing?

[Marc]

naval gazing on a belly button clogged with lint

[Jim]

The problem for Labour is that if they don't support EVEL they're probably screwed in England. The labour party in England has to decide whether it's an English party or not. Obviously it's not a Scots party, and it isn't a Welsh party, so if it isn't an English party, it's dead.
Labour has to find a way of reaching out to the English and winning votes in England. There's not reason why they cannot do this, they've just got to offer something that appeals to the English.

[R.M.F.]

Jim wrote: "The problem for Labour is that if they don't support EVEL they're probably screwed in England. The labour party in England has to decide whether it's an English party or not. Obviously it's not a S..."

Labour will probably try and out Tory the Tories in England. There's only ever going to be one winner there.

[R.M.F.]

Marc wrote: "naval gazing on a belly button clogged with lint"

It seems strange that the main opposition to Dave and his henchmen seems to be the SNP :)

[Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)]

R.M.F wrote: "Just been watching the SNP's amendments getting voted down by Labour and the Tories in parliament. The Tories are backing-tracking on powers promised in the Smith Commission, something the Conserva..."

Can you provide any evidence to support that? The SNP have stated clearly that they will add amendments that were not agreed by the Smith commission. It's most likely that these are the things that are being voted down.

[R.M.F.]

Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "R.M.F wrote: "Just been watching the SNP's amendments getting voted down by Labour and the Tories in parliament. The Tories are backing-tracking on powers promised in the Smith Commission, somethin..."

In the Smith Commission, the Tories signed up to the pledge that Scottish people would have the final say in a referendum, and not Westminster, if it ever came to scrapping the Scottish Parliament.

Tories voted against their own pledge...

[Jim]

R.M.F wrote: "In the Smith Commission, the Tories signed up to the pledge that Scottish people would have the final say in a referendum, and not Westminster, if it ever came to scrapping the Scottish Parliament.

Tories voted against their own pledge... ..."

It might be that they've decided that there's no point in worrying about the Scots. If they go, they go, if they stay they stay. After all, if we do get an English Parliament, that's unlikely to vote to give money to the Scots and I suspect both main parties are more worried about getting English backing than Scots.

[R.M.F.]

Jim wrote: "R.M.F wrote: "In the Smith Commission, the Tories signed up to the pledge that Scottish people would have the final say in a referendum, and not Westminster, if it ever came to scrapping the Scotti..."

I agree. For me, the Scotland bill was the last chance to save the Union by creating a federal structure. Instead, Scotland got told where to go, and EVEL is being rushed through parliament quicker than you can say constitutional crisis.

[Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)]

RMF. I think you may be somewhat misled by what you've been hearing about the Scotland Bill.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknew...

Even the Law Society of Scotland agrees that the bill aligns with the Smith Commission.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknew...

I think someone north of the border is mischief making.

[R.M.F.]

Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "RMF. I think you may be somewhat misled by what you've been hearing about the Scotland Bill.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknew......"

The telegraph has been one of the most venomous, anti Scotland newspapers around, these past two years.

After their recent Frenchgate shambles, I wouldn't believe the Telegraph if they told me grass was green.

[Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)]

R.M.F wrote: "Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "RMF. I think you may be somewhat misled by what you've been hearing about the Scotland Bill.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknew......"

You cannot deny the fact that the Scottish Law Society agrees that bill alligns with the Smith Commission. This is the announcement from their own website - http://www.lawscot.org.uk/news/2015/0...

Let me guess, you don't believe your own lawmakers either as they are mere lackies of the repressive Tory Westminster government.

[R.M.F.]

Geoff, the SoS for Scotland has claimed that Westminster doesn't have a veto over new powers for Scotland. IMO he's talking balls, but don't take my word for it, judge for yourself.

You'll note two curious phrases that pop up in the below examples from the Scotland Bill going through parliament. "Consulted the Secretary of State," and "the SoS has agreed to the order being made."

Here are some examples. Their is plenty more where these came from.

51 ENERGY COMPANY OBLIGATIONS

(5) The Scottish ministers may not make an order under section 33BC unless-

(a) They have consulted the Secretary of State about the proposed order and

(b) The SoS has agreed to the order being made.

50 FUEL POVERTY SUPPORT SCHEMES

(4) The Scottish ministers may not make an order under section 9 unless-

a) They have consulted the Secretary of State about the proposed order and

(b) The SoS has agreed to the order being made.

I could go on and on. The word veto is never mentioned, but I think the intent is crystal clear.

As for the Law society you mention, if they haven't noticed the wording, then they're incompetent lawyers.

If they have, then their claims are coming out their backsides.

[Jim]

You see why the English have got to the stage where most of them no longer care either way. It'd make everything so much easier if Scotland went independent. Unless they did something silly like join the euro or Schengen then it wouldn't make much difference. Any currency they had could just shadow the Pound sterling if they wanted it to, so the pound Scots (or whatever) would just convert 1 for 1.

[R.M.F.]

Jim wrote: "You see why the English have got to the stage where most of them no longer care either way. It'd make everything so much easier if Scotland went independent. Unless they did something silly like jo..."

I tried to tell people that for 2 years. Sadly, it fell on deaf ears.

[Jim]

From the English point of view it would be easy, from the Scots point of view it would inevitably mean that they'd effectively have their monetary policy dictated by the Bank of England. Obvious they would have the advantage over Greece or any other country with the Euro that they could devalue because it would be their currency.
Again, looked at from a purely English point of view the money that previously went to Scotland on the Barnett formula could be spent in the North of England, Northern Ireland and Wales instead

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/resources/g...

[Will]

I see two problems with Scottish independence. The problem for the UK is that it diminishes our standing in the world as we become a smaller nation.

The problem for Scotland is that it is unaffordable. The UK is currently subsidising Scotland to the tune of around £10 billion a year. So if they are going to become fiscally autonomous they are going to have to find that money. It's hard to see how.

£10 billion worth of austerity measures? The SNP surely won't want to do that.

£10 billion of borrowing? Followed by another £10 billion next year and the next. And before long it will be £11 billion per year as the interest payments kick in. And that's the slippery slope that leads to the problems that Greece is experiencing.

It would be economic suicide for Scotland to try to go it alone. And that it what annoys me about the SNP's manifesto. They tell porkies. Before the referendum they say that this is a once in a generation chance for independence. Now they seem to want referendum after referendum until they get the answer they want.

And they bleat about austerity and fiscal autonomy whilst at the same time we are subsidising their spending by £10 billion a year.

They claim to be a party of Government whilst putting out the unrealistic and unfundable policies of a minority party. Giving them a country to run would be like giving a child the keys to your car.

[Marc]

Will wrote: "I see two problems with Scottish independence. The problem for the UK is that it diminishes our standing in the world as we become a smaller nation.

..."

Good, then maybe we wouldn't be so eager to throw our historically bloated carcass weight around the world quite so readily.

We are considering bombing Syria now. have we learned nothing?

[R.M.F.]

"It would be economic suicide for Scotland to try to go it alone."

And yet, London fought tooth and nail for two years to hold onto Scotland.

Let's look at this, logically, Will. The Tories are supposed to be the party of business. If you're running a business and you have the chance to jettison a sector of your firm which is dragging down the rest, wouldn't you take it?

Years ago, I came to the conclusion that if Scotland really were a basket case, then the rest of the UK would have let us go years ago.

That they're fighting to keep it...well, that tells me something else.

[R.M.F.]

And another thing. We have been a net contributor to the UK for years. But I'm not interested in the money arguments. Never have been. Democracy and self-determination is all I care about.

[Bookworm]

Nope doesn't seem like it.

[R.M.F.]

Marc wrote: "Will wrote: "I see two problems with Scottish independence. The problem for the UK is that it diminishes our standing in the world as we become a smaller nation.

..."

Good, then maybe we wouldn't..."

Watched the defence secretary getting interview, yesterday. The man seems to be living in cloud cuckoo land.

[Marc]

1) An air campaign alone cannot bring about victory
2) What are a couple of Tornado bombers going to bring to the party that the US aren't already covering?
3) So we end up supporting Assad
4) To defeat extremism at home is not about lopping off the head of ISIS or Al Qaeda or the Taliban, because like a hydra they sprout more. It is about addressing the issues that lead to disaffection & alienation at home that leave some folk looking elsewhere for meaning & purpose. The British values narrative is exactly that which holds no value for the disaffected
5) we make ourselves even more of a target the more Islamic nations we get involved in militarily
6) The events in Tunisia probably had more to do with ISIS in Libya than ISIS in the Levant. Do we go back in & bomb Libya too? That worked out well the last time didn't it?

[Will]

We can't afford to ignore the threat that ISIS poses to us.

However, Fallon appears to be working on the basis that use of the RAF is very high profile ( not to mention staggeringly expensive when the talk is all of cutting back!) and therefore makes it look as if he's doing something.

The truth is that putting the sport of money blown away on some smart bombs that don't hit any useful target into counter terrorism and propoganda/re education - whatever you like to call the fight against radicalisation - is going to be much more effective

[Marc]

I'm not for one minute suggesting we don't try and tackle ISIS. My point 4 echoes yours and my earlier point about the UK having to re-educate itself that it is not a world military player anymore. What we can do usefully is back-channels and sub-voce where we do retain some influence. But less so than we used to after being America's poodle for 3 decades.

[Jim]

Will wrote: "We can't afford to ignore the threat that ISIS poses to us.

..."

There will be terror attacks in the UK, anybody want to put money on Christmas?
But remember there would be terror attacks in the UK whether we'd attacked anywhere or not. The Dutch, Spanish, Scandinavians or Brazilians aren't known for their policy of invading the Middle East.
We'll be under attack because we do things these people find Abhorrent. We allow women to drive and don't keep them shut up in the house, we have legalised homosexuality. We even have democracy which some of these groups find frankly disgusting.

There can never be any form of compromise with these groups, because they will not compromise.

But the important thing to remember is that they kill far more Muslims than non-Muslims, an order of magnitude more at least. They are a issue that Muslims will have to deal with, if only to stop them killing Muslims. What we can do is work out how to deal with those we have in the UK.

[Jim]

R.M.F wrote: " The Tories are supposed to be the party of business. ..."

I'm afraid you're believing the propaganda rather than looking at the true situation.

The 'Conservative and Unionist Party' has always been strongly in support of the United Kingdom.

[Marc]

all good points. The Spanish and Dutch have taken part in international 'peacekeeping' actions for which they have not been forgiven by certain parts of the Muslim community, particularly the massacres in Bosnia. The Scandis get it in the neck because they publish images of Mohammad in papers and art exhibits. Like you say, no compromise...

The Brazilians, well you got me there. :-)

[Marc]

Jim wrote: "R.M.F wrote: " The Tories are supposed to be the party of business. ..."

I'm afraid you're believing the propaganda rather than looking at the true situation.

The 'Conservative and Unionist Party..."

and yet they will be the ones under whose watch the Union starts to break up. Oh delicious irony

[R.M.F.]

Jim wrote: "R.M.F wrote: " The Tories are supposed to be the party of business. ..."

I'm afraid you're believing the propaganda rather than looking at the true situation.
The 'Conservative and Unionist Party..."

And yet, EVEL threatens to unravel the union at break-neck speed.

I've looked at EVEL and it can be summed up as such:

English MPs get to vote on English only matters.

English MPs get to vote on Scottish laws

No votes for Welsh, Northern Irish, or Scottish MPs on English laws...

Now, I'm sympathetic to English MPs voting on English only matters, I support the idea in principal. But it's a UK parliament. Unless England gets devolution...

[R.M.F.]

Example of EVEL in practice and why it won't work.

English MPs want to vote on changing the NHS in England. They say it should be English MPs only. Fair enough.

BUT

If English MPs vote on cutting NHS funding in England, this has a knock on effect for Scotland. Our budget would be cut proportionally, but we'd have no say about it...

Not very fair is it. Yes, health is devolved to Scotland, but London controls the purse strings...

[Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)]

R.M.F wrote: "Jim wrote: "R.M.F wrote: " The Tories are supposed to be the party of business. ..."

I'm afraid you're believing the propaganda rather than looking at the true situation.
The 'Conservative and Uni..."

You are typing rubbish, RMF and you know it.

Since the Scottish, Welsh and NI governments were set up, our UK Parliament has no voting rights on devolved issues. This will continue when those powers are expanded.

A quote in the Commons on this matter sums it up - “SNP MPs already don’t vote on English-only legislation which has no financial impact on Scotland. We don’t need a change of the rules to determine what we can and can’t vote for.” - Angus Robertson.

So, what's the problem with formalising it? The SNP is just causing trouble again. The Scots voted against leaving the UK, the UK did not vote for the Scots to stay or you'd have probably been out on your ear. In fact the SNP threatened to take us to the European Court in the Haig if we had that vote.

And another thing. We have been a net contributor to the UK for years. But I'm not interested in the money arguments. Never have been. Democracy and self-determination is all I care about.

I had to stop myself, I was laughing so hard I couldn't type. I presume economics wasn't your field at university? 300 years ago, Scotland joined the Union because it was bankrupt. Scotland did then what RBS repeated in the first years of the 21 century. The UK saved Scotland in 2008 by bailing out RBS. If you had had independence at that time, Scotland would have been bankrupt AGAIN, as Scotland would not have had the wealth to bail it out.

[Marc]

The European Court In The Al Haig?

[Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)]

Marc wrote: "The European Court In The Al Haig?"

No, I thought I'd use a whisky reference under the circumstances. ;)

[Marc]

:-)

[R.M.F.]

Geoff, RBS is Scottish in name only. HSBC has a Chinese city in its name. Does it belong to China?

Yes, the SNP don't vote on English only matters, but that's a gentleman's agreement. There is nothing stopping them from doing so, if they wish.

The UK Parliament does have voting rights on devolved issues - it could scrap the Scottish Parliament tomorrow, if it wanted.

I'll say it again: I support, in principal, the idea of only English MPs voting on English matters. But English matters are NOT exclusively English. Health care is a great example for this.

If English MPs vote to reduce NHS spending in England by 10%, then the Scottish NHS also suffers a cut, due to the funding mechanisms.

[R.M.F.]

A solution to this problem is devolution for England, with a separate Parliament for England only, but that could create a constitutional crisis in future, if, for example, Labour needed Scottish MPs to get stuff through the house.

Like I said, EVEL is a crackpot scheme that has been drawn up on the back of a cigarette packet.

[Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)]

Again, you are wrong, RMF. RBS is a Scottish bank with its head office in Edinburgh. Had you had independence in 2008 you would have had to bail it out, either that or let it collapse. If you'd let it collapse, no one would have ever trusted a Scottish bank again and your credit status as a country would have been junk. Greece would have looked at you and realised there really were people worse off than themselves.

Yes, the SNP don't vote on English only matters, but that's a gentleman's agreement. There is nothing stopping them from doing so, if they wish.

What is your point? Are you saying that they will break their word and vote on English matters? If the answer is yes, then it is very important to have it enshrined in law, if not, then enshrining it in law doesn't make any difference.

If English MPs vote to reduce NHS spending in England by 10%, then the Scottish NHS also suffers a cut, due to the funding mechanisms.

NHS budgets in England have nothing whatever to do with Scotland and if England reduces its budget it would have absolutely no effect upon NHS Scotland. The subsidy for the Scottish NHS is paid out of the, far too generous, Barnett formula. Besides, if it did, it would be allowed to be voted upon by the Scottish MPs, because it would be a matter for all the UK and therefore outside the EVEL changes, which I might add was promised to the people of England during the referendum.

The only answer is to have an English parliament. However, you, as a part of the UK, decided not to take that option by voting to stay in the UK. Most Scottish people are sensible and wise, that's why they turned down independence. They know that Salmond, et al, we dodging and lying to get their own way. Just be very thankful that the SNP lost the referendum, because if you had won, in 15 years time when you couldn't give away what little oil and gas you have left, you would be bankrupt, again.

[R.M.F.]

I never voted to stay in the UK, I campaigned for a yes vote. let's get the record straight, there. :)

"because if you had won, in 15 years time when you couldn't give away what little oil and gas you have left, you would be bankrupt, again."

Even without oil and gas, Scotland is a net contributor to the UK. If I had a pound for every time that I had to point that out over the years, I'd be able to buy Manchester City!

And finally, comparing Scotland to Greece, is laughable nonsense.

Also, comparing Scotland's finances to years of Westminster mis-management, is also risible. The UK is in pretty bad financial shape, is it not, and about to get worse?

[R.M.F.]

The truth of the matter is that without the UK's debt and deficit, Scotland would be in a far healthier position than it is now.

[Jim]

That's why every time there's been a poll in England the English have a majority for the Scots going, we want to empower you :-)