The joke's on us
Peter Mandelson already has more titles than Manchester United but I think his shoulders are broad enough for another: comedian.
He had us splitting our sides on Monday when he announced that we couldn't have a new comprehensive spending review for the next three years because it would be "speculative". Errr ... isn't what all three-projections are ... guesstimates of where we might go based on certain assumptions?
Sadly I have to report that Mandy's sense of humour is not shared in the Treasury, where Chancellor Darling was said to be "stoatin" (Scottish for aghast) at the Business Secretary's presumption that he can speak for him.
No matter. The Joker keeps 'em coming, to the nation's delight. Earlier in the week he told us that he'd have to pigeon hole the part-privatisation of the Royal Mail because he was being "jostled" out of his position on the legislative timetable by other ministers. What a hoot! The idea that the king-maker and de facto Deputy Prime Minister could be denied whatever he desires is just too funny for words.
Within 24 hours he'd changed the punchline: now it was "market conditions" which made it impossible to privatise. Which, sad to relate, is not as funny as his original explanation. Indeed it's more a conundrum than a joke: after all, the market was in a much worse state when the Business Secretary started touting part-privatisation, since when it has been recovering quite nicely.
Actually, whatever the punchline, the joke's on us. Whether privatised, part-privatised or state owned we, the taxpayer, will have to pick up the tab for the Post Office's massive multi-billion pension obligations, which are bigger than its total assets.
Yes, I thought that would take the smile off your face.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~09~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
'Mandleson' Prime Minister in all but title.
Brown is a puppet hanging on for grim death to power that is slipping away from him because he's patently unsuitable for the job. Meanwhile another unelected politician in Mandleson pulls all the strings and sets the tone.
The sooner we get our general election, the better it will be for all of us, it isn't the 'Labour Party' that's gone to hell in a hand basket, it's the top team, the head bunch, the cretins who've wormed their way into power that are destroying the once respected party and making them unelectable with their spin, lies, u-turns and unworkable policy.
Complain about this comment
Two legs good; four legs bad.
The lunatics have taken over the asylum.
Complain about this comment
Part privatising the Royal Mail was a stupid idea from the outset. It needs help, but privatisation wasn't the right solution. Doesn't matter why it has been kicked into the long-grass. The important thing is that it is in the long grass.
What hasn't helped the Royal Mail is "increased competition" that is actually "cherry-picking" rather than proper competition, i.e. TNT doing the first part of the job of collecting bulk-sorted mail from my Bank, whilst it ultimately falls to the Royal Mails foot soldiers, i.e. postmen to push my bank statement through the door.
Force TNT to have any army of foot soldiers delivering to every house in the land and they'll be competing equally with the Royal Mail...
Better still. Give Royal Mail it's monopoly back, so it has a reasonable chance of making some money and investing in its own future...
Complain about this comment
Ah ha! So, Lord Mandy of Everything has parked his postal trolly in a lock up of Whitehall ...in Long Grass Lane. Not before proving why he's not employed as a wise seer at the FT and only after calling in at the Treasury to truss up their tame but increasingly vexed badger.
Does The Badger not realise that he has been 'reshuffled' afterall?
Complain about this comment
Mandy seems to suffer from the same affliction as Brown.
I was told in my youth that to be a good liar you need to have a good memory otherwise you will be found out.
It appears they have been found out.
Complain about this comment
So what about the Civil Service and the MPs pension, not forgetting our government one? Having raided the private one in the first years and over spending with Blair. The Government is having to get ready to raid the civil service, oh dear they can't as they are in hock to the unions.
Looks like Bad Moon Rising.
Complain about this comment
As I have been known to criticise the Government once or twice, can I even things up by saying that I was impressed by what I saw reported on BBC South about the new Queen Alexandra Hospital in Portsmouth. Labour have delivered a nice new state-of-the-art facility. I look forward to being treated there. No, that's not quite right, but you know what I mean...
The really big caveat though, seems to be the huge PFI liabilities that are clearly going to be a burden to the taxpayer for years to come, which on top of the ongoing row about national debt further demonstrates Labours recklessness with public spending. That's the concern really, Labours recklessness. We could have paid for the hospital in six years and not had any ongoing liabilities to the private sector...
Are the PFI liabilities included in the national debt ?
I suspect not.
PFI is creative accounting by the Government. Short-term gain with no regard for the longer term risks/problems. You should be a Banker Gordon....!
Complain about this comment
Ask him about his Brazilian - sorry now British - boyfriend, that'll wipe the smirk off his face!
Complain about this comment
If Michael Howard were said to have something of the night about him just imagine what description Ann W would give to Lord Snooty. The trouble with the man is he knows he is taking us all for mugs and having a quiet little laugh inside about it. What his type will never really understand is that there comes a day when you add up what you did and try to work out whether it was all worth while. Lord Snooty is assured of one certainty - he will undoubtedly end up with more enemies than friends. He will aso find that his cupboard will be bare as far as real lasting achievements for the British people are concerned.
If Lord Snooty wants to speak for me and my country he should start by renouncing his peerage and by getting back to standing for election to the House of Commons. Perhaps Hartlepool will welcome him back with open arms. That way he would get back to having some legitimacy whereas at the moment he has none. In truth I find him a deeply depressing and sad character.
Complain about this comment
The ridiculous thing is that Lord Minky is so totally incompetent.
It's not as if he's got power through his competence or ability.
Is the Labour Party so shallow that a bit of behind the scenes machinations and dagger thrusts get you leadership.
Having reduced Gordon to parrotting Labour policy like soap powder off one of the Apprentice's fumbled TV ads - 'Tory cuts' - 'Labour the party of the many' - 'Tory unemployment. It's banality aimed at a level to insult even John Prescott's intelligence. The dreadful stupidity is that with unemployment odds on to increase, Labour with no option but to make cuts and most Labour MP's clinging to feudal honours with goggle eyed wonder, it's bound to blow up all over the Party.
I think the Labour hierarchy should examine whether or not Lord Minky is a plant - probably an aspidistra. I think the fact that he dresses in ermine could be a dead giveaway, and that he only wears a flat cap when going on a hunting trip for the weekend.
Perhaps it's time for Labour to be renamed the Mandelson Party. He might then treat it with a little more respect.
Complain about this comment
The initiative on 'credit card cheques' and being granted unrequested credit card limit increases, is so out of date it's mind boggling. Did something get stuck in the system ?
Now that the credit card boom is over it's rather pointless and only highlights the fact that the Government did nothing when this abuse was at its height.
My own bank have written to me to reduce my card limit because I never use it, and I suspect that Gordon has received the green light from banks to go ahead on this issue in vuew of the changed economic circumstances. I have written back to my bank stating that my credit funds will be placed with a bank that provides the service I want.
If that's supposed to be an example of Gordon getting tough with banks, I just shake my head in despair. Perhaps he foresees a place on the board of the Royal Bank of Gordon after politics ?
Complain about this comment
I thought you commentator from the Guardian yesterday was very good in analysing the situation in PMQs. Gordon Brown is trapped by his refusal to say that he has to cut services and proves how useless the labour MPs were in not getting rid of him.
If Brown had gone, the new boy could have been a new broom, culled some of the worse MPs and faced up to the debt mountain that has been created. He or she (got forbid that it was Harriet Harman) could have gambled on an early election and may, just may have done a John Major and won or achieved hung parliament.
Now we are left with a government that is trying desperately to hide all the bad news from the voters before next year. Sorry, but saying the Comprehensive Spending Review just underlines the fact. Of course, there is going to be a sovereign debt crisis coming because Gordon Brown can not admit he is going to have to cut spending.
And finally, the organ grinder PM (that is Peter Mandleson, the monkey being Gordon Brown) trying to blacken George Osbourne again, unlined the lost of perspective and of course was hilarious coming from him.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
HOORAY!
Well said John Denham
He's hit the nail squarely on the head. That's essentially what my blogging over the last 9 months or so has been all about.
If the UK was fairer to EVERYBODY, I wouldn't need to sound-off on the DP blog and elsewhere quite so much. I've got better things to do...
Complain about this comment
Unfortunately, it's not a joke.
The GPO, sorry..., Royal Mail obviously needs urgent investment. The multi-billion pension obligation are not only a cause for serious concern, but a deterrent for anyone considering coming to the rescue. The whole idea of public sector pensions has been nothing but a massive fraud perpetrated by successive governments. It was always assumed that 'contributions' from new employees would cover the cost of paying out to those who had retired. In reality, people are living much longer and the money simply isn't there.
Things are now at crisis point, but Brown knows it wont be his problem. Whilst he makes vacuous promises about what he intends to do after the next election, he knows full well someone else will have to sort it out.
As for Lord Mandelson, it no doubt also suits him to make the most of the remainder of his time in office.
The government is simply treading water, playing for time.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
the joke is not on 'us'. It is those who will come after us, I won't be picking up the bill for all this borrowing. It is my children and grand children. It is an absolute disgrace that the likes of mandelson who will not be around for ever, evn he will pass away one day, and what will he and his like leave behind. Everything is broken, it is over.
My point is that others are now confirming what many of us think, that this is the end for the Union. The UK Federal State is unravelling. England must have it's own parliament, we must dissolve the UK, the Queen can still be Queen if she likes but the Welsh, Northern Irish and Scots must be cast adrift.
When the country is being bankrupted by a load of Scottish MPs in parliament, then it is time to go. After the second American civil war, there were people from the North who went South and were known as carpetbaggers, this is the same today I am fed up with being ruled by Scottish born leaders, Blair and Brown. One has led to the moral bankrupcy of the UK, the other the financial, this is the end. There must be a general election, and no matter how much the labour party tries to bribe the voter, the truth will come out, we are bankrupt.
Complain about this comment
Any truth in the rumour that Lord Minky's cancelled the Labour Party Conference because the outlook's so uncertain ?
If Labour are looking to introduce non-controversial legislation, something to stop John Prescott gurning in front of railway station video cameras would be welcome.
It's quite amazing that the Labour Party hate Lord Minky and so do the electorate, and yet here he is - the Ground Elder Statesman of British Politics. Is he likely to attempt a speech at the Labour Party Conference ? That, I'd have to watch.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
so now Osborne is to be investigated. What is interesting is that we should be told if HMRC are going to investigate the MPs who flipped their homes. Now how can any MP who is being investigated by the Revenue continue to serve in parliament. We must be given a list of those MPs who are being investigated by HMRC, and if an MP has flipped their home then why are they not being investigated. Mind you could it be that is possibly why MPs are going to take an extended holiday, so that they can spend time with their accountants trying to explain their actions. Maybe they should be given the equivalent of a flu buddy.
Complain about this comment
There was a question at PMQs on Wednesday that escaped attention. A woman MP, I think a Liberal Democrat, asked if the Swine Flu epidemic were to become bad enough would the PM consider recalling Parliament during the Summer recess. It was met with laughter and derision from the Government, with the worst offender being Alan Johnson, who turned sneeringly towards colleagues as much as to say what an idiot. With Swine Flu now predicted to reach 100,000 new cases per day (a figure I feel sure Johnson and the Government must have known when the jeering took place) it didnt look like a stupid question after all. This Government is not just bad, it is cynical and politically bankrupt, something I have never felt so strongly about in 72 years.
While I have no great love for the Lib Dems I do think they get a rough deal in Parliament. While Brown and Cameron have the safety of the Despatch Box Nick Clegg has to stand with small piece of paper in hand, looking totally exposed. He is not very good, but as soon as he starts he is jeered to the rafters by Labour. He gets just two questions, the first of which is an introduction to the second. The Prime Minister waits for the second with a look of indulgence and then dismisses it as a question that only a Liberal could ask. You would never believe that they presently poll almost as many votes as Labour...
Complain about this comment
16TAG
Too true - makes you wonder if bankruptcy was exactly what they had 'planned' for us in the first instance?
What a fine job they have done!
Complain about this comment
Oops, got canned for accusing certain deities of telling porky pies. Let's try again employing a popular euphemism this time ...
Yesterday Mandy was up in arms about GOs protestation that government were denying access to key information required to derive policy in the run up to an election. He said that government couldn't have interfered because this was a matter for civil servants according to convention.
On ConHome this morning there is a good piece on the "Douglass Home Rules" that have been used for decades to grant access to civil servants for opposition parties in the run up to a general election. Apparently the COINs database is not covered by these rules.
Sadly and somewhat strangely in our country, information on governance gathered by public servants at public expense does not belong to the public but to Government. So it's entirely possible that Sir Gus didn't feel he could grant GO's request without reference to ministers. It's entirely possible ministers prevented Gus from granting GO access to COINs. We just don't know.
I don't think George ever claimed that Gordon had personally told him he couldn't have access. He said he had been denied, the truth of which can easily be verified, and he suspected government interference. So a bit rich of Mandy to say that GO had not been truthful. I hope George will prove that he did ask and I hope that Sir Gus will now go on record with reasons for the denial of access.
The only person that we know for sure was economical with the truth was Mandy himself because access to COINS was never merely a matter for civil servants. No surprise there then.
Much more important than these silly, childish games our politicians are so wont to play, is that it is clearly in the public interest for the opposition parties to be given access to key metrics on governance so that they can develop and publish policies for our approval. So, can someone please stop all this nonsense and make it happen, and can all parties come up with some sensible, costed ideas on how we get ourselves out of this mess? Thank you.
Complain about this comment
# 16 T A Griffin
When the country is being bankrupted by a load of Scottish MPs in parliament,
The problem has not been caused by the Scottishness of Labour MPs, but their incompetence. Even if the Welsh, Northern Irish and Scots were cast adrift as you suggest, this would not solve the problem. And we would still be left with Mandelson!
Personally, I think the Union is stronger if it holds together. I have never understood why some Scots support full separation, yet the same also support even greater integration into a federalist Europe which would remove the last vestiges of their 'national' independence.
The biggest problem we have now is 'big government' - a recipe for tax and waste, and an ideology that believes it is the role of politicians and unelected officials to micro-manage every aspect of our lives from the cradle to the grave. We need less government, not more.
Who are these people who dictate the shape of our bananas? Why has this been allowed to happen?
According to Ronald Reagan: The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' He also said: 'The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.'. He could have been talking about NuLabour (or Old Labour for that matter)
You are right to point out the problems of the Union and the one-sided devolution that has resulted in the tail wagging the dog. The English have been treated with utter contempt by this government. But I don't blame the Scots. I blame Labour.
Complain about this comment
Good afternoon each & Andrew.
Re Marquis Meddlesome.
Why not ignore him? Or if he must speak; why not in company with other unelected members of the 'upper' house or indeed in train with any Joe Blogs?
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
surely the time is fast approaching when the government is going to announce that in order to prevent widespread infection from Swine Flu, that all sporting events which attract crowds will have to be cancelled. The test series against Australia must be cancelled, the football season for next season must be abandoned, or with television coverage all matches are to be played behind closed doors.
There must be restrictions placed on all forms of travel, with similar restrictions to those of Foot and Mouth. Must we have thousands of deaths before the actions necessary to prevent this spread of Swine Flu are implemented. Furthermore, the government must announce that there will be no election held next year because of the seriousness of the situation. This is a national emergency, it is meant to be the conservatives who are 'do nothing' party, I hope that the labour government actually 'do something', they could form a government of national unity for a start. What do others think, I feel a coup coming on.
Complain about this comment
I caught a quick glimpse of some spokesperson stating that the state pension would have to be delayed being paid until the age of 78, though ideally later, with the current state of our finances.
.... and here I was thinking we had money to pour down the drain and into bankers pockets like it's party time. If this is Socialism in action, bring on the Tories - anyone.
This proposition would work fine if combined with a policy on euthanasia too. When added with this quote from a few days ago, it appears we are generally suffering from a plague of spraying away money we haven't got, with no answer as to what to do whan it's all gone other than starve.
"According to the influential British-North American Committee (BNAC), Britains unfunded pension liability the retirement benefits of civil servants paid out of future taxes amounts to 85pc of annual GDP. The ratio is 28pc and 27pc respectively in the US and Canada, where the majority of public sector schemes are now funded, BNAC said."
Maybe the sight of Britons starving on the streets might persuade a few of our would be immigrants that we are more in need of help than capable of giving it.
I don't foresee short-sighted airline pilots manning their planes into their dotage, or doddery surgeons trying to remeber where they put their scalpels, though those workers will probably be taken care of. Arthritic soldiers and manual labourers out in the winter snow may find life a little tougher, even if employment for them is at all possible.
Final salary pension schemes in the private sector are all but gone, and it's time the same applied to the public sector (MP's and civil servants included). If MP's have messed the system up, then they should be the first to suffer and see how a pension at 78 feels, with annual rises in line with those set for the state pension.
I think MP's should talk pensions - and now.
Complain about this comment
#25
I think that you will find Brown will become a teacher alright. At Harvard, or Yale. You don't think that he and his ilk will actually hang around to survey all their damage. Why do you think he gave Kennedy a nominal knighthood, he will be amongst his own, Matha's Vineyard.
Complain about this comment
Before Gordon went for 'A Bridge Too Far', TAG, he had the reputation of a financial Messiah, and could have drifted up to the Lords on angel wings with banks clamouring around his ankles for his rear end to be placed on their boards.
In spite of him having trashed the UK economy more effectively than Goerring, I still feel the banking community look on his largesse with fond affection, as showing the sort of kindred spirit he could never share with the ignorant impoverished populace.
If the banks don't look after him I foresee a huge gash in the space time continuum. He's a bank clerk by nature, always was and always will be. Not a good one I hasten to add.
Complain about this comment
25 Thank goodness I have got mine in the bag. On that proposal I would still have six years to wait. Still, they did save on a demob suit in 1956 so I am not a total winner.
Complain about this comment
This is not a Good Morning Andrew,
this is no longer a joke. This PM continues to be a disaster. We need to be told exactly what is the point of our continued presence in Afghanistan. The Americans have effectively taken over from us, just as they did in Iraq during the clearing up of Basra. We now have another two deaths one of a very senior officer.
What on earth was such a senior officer doing being out on the front. We are told that officers like to lead from the front, this harsh lesson was learnt during WWI that that is one thing they should not do. It is extra-ordinarily expensive to invest in an officer, the training is not cheap, so they learnt that it might look good but Haig took his officers away from the front. He made them the planners, the ones who did not lead from the front. That was the job of somebody else.
It is widely known that a senior SAS officer resigned from the regiment on the basis that he was criticised for going out with his men on operations. This is where there are difficulties, because these men are brave, they do want to be with their men, yet an accountant, a bank manager, a chancellor, would say no, we can't afford these men and equipment to be lost.
It is the same with an aircraft carrier. Billions spent on it, all the investment, yet the last thing they would want is for it to be lost on operations. So you keep it in port. Bit like the Germans in WWII, they built beautiful ships, the Graf Spee, the Bismark, the Tirpitz, yet the first two were lost and accordingly the third one could not be used, the loss of such a vessel would be bad for morale. They are for show.
With our army and military at the moment, we cannot afford to lose men and machines, they are too expensive. I think that we are wasting men and material in Afghanistan, we cannot afford it, it is sapping our morale, our economy, and why, what is the point of being in Afghanistan, there is no point at all. We can't even capture bin Laden, we have not 'destroyed' the Talibhan. We never will. Not unless we do the unacceptable, we could win, like America could have won in Vietnem, only the price will never be worth paying.
Complain about this comment
I have little time for those (especially pols and media types) who presume to talk for others, so may I invoke a royal ''we' are not amused'.
This is beyond a sick joke.
And one being played by irresponsible, unaccountable, untouchable entities in the public sector, from the lowest in the land to the even lower (from government ministers to BBC executives), all secure in the knowledge that, no matter what they do, they will be all right, Jack. Pay, perks, power, pension and punditry.
I rather suspect seem are no longer too content with eating cake and, unlike our French cousins, without the pressure valve of more regular, overt release on occasion, when the limit is reached it won't be pretty.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
there is now breaking news that ten Talibhan have been killed as a result of a 'Drone' attack in Pakistan. Many others have been injured. How dare the Americans effectively invade another foreign sovereign state without going through the UN. There was no action taken against Turkey when they sent forces into Iraq to take on 'terrorists'. The whole area is now completely out of control.
Pakistan has nuclear weapons, there is still the danger that the government will be overthrown because Pakistan is effectively under American control, they are funding the army in that country, and the country is now in a situation of civil war. Obama currently has support for his actions, but not for much longer, he is having to follow the orders from the army, he has the best of intentions but this is going to turn into a disaster. I have to say Andrew that some will accuse those of us who write these words as not being experts, what do you know, you are a defeatist, to these people I would say no, some of us are old enough to have seen it all before, the USSR was broken in Afghanistan, it will happen to us as well.
Others say I talk with the benefit of hindsight, to these I say that just read Kipling, what on earth is a eighteen year old doing on the front. Have we come to this.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
now we have the return of the rogue trader. The price of oil rises to the highest level this year. The rogue trader, the rogue state, the rogue PM, the rogue economy. This is the day of the rogue. In the meantime California is just about bankrupt, another rogue state which cannot manage its economy.
Now they are having cuts in California, because the same is happening here, tax revenues are hugely down. Brown ought to speak to Arnie, he may well issue IOUs like California, I'll pay you next year, after the election, anyone for poker!
Complain about this comment
TAG
In 31 you identify the problem but then shy away from the only solution available to us. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Bin Laden is probably living in either Afghanistan or in Pakistan. He has access to huge sums of money and to fanatics in both countries who will give their lives to kill us. The Taliban are in both countries and their tentacles spread throughout on a basis of instilling fear so that they can take power. We have seen throughout the region how easy it is for people intent of terrorism and murder to take power by force.
The Americans cloud the issue by taking the iniative in what ought to be a United Nations campaign. It is not helped by their alleged description of their allies in Afghanistan as "Cheese eating surrender monkeys".
I have lived through 72 years of uncertainty, the worst of which was undoubtedly the fear it is easy to engender by the mere mention of nuclear weapons. But we know from 1945 in Japan what they can do. At least in the Sixties when JFK confronted the USSR we knew who had the weapons. There are said to be thousands in Pakistan which could all fall into the worst possible hands - supporters of bin Laden. If Hitler had got the atom bomb in 1944 we would not be writing these posts. If bin Laden gets them now then you can certainly forget about posting anything in the future.
To those who say get out of Afghanistan I say what do you do when bin Ladsen comes calling as he did in 2001, only this time with atom bombs? We have to stay for the long haul, and hope that we can defeat the Taliban and at the same time help to stabilise Pakistan.
Complain about this comment
Andrew: It is said that Labour supporters in Norwich say the only way they could have a chance of winning the forthcoming by-election is if Gordon Brown stays away.
Is that the sort of reaction you would expect all Scots to get from visiting towns in England?
Complain about this comment
#33
I am not quite as old as you but I remember very well the 1960s not the Cuban Missile Crisis, but all the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere. Nobody seems to think that you could not set these off without causing problems somewhere else. we know about the upper stratosphere, we know the effect that Krakatoa had on the environment, where are the government studies into the effects of setting off nuclear weapons, for testing purposes. Did they contribute to global warming, or cooling. Get the lawyers in, as for cancer! What is it about Strontium 90, what is its half life.
Complain about this comment
"Mr Darling is thought likely to reject Mr King's call for banks to be split between their risky investment sides and their safer retail operations."
As it appears that my taxes are not being paid to provide a National Health Service or state pension for me, I see no reason why they are being used to underwrite the risky gambling of high finance institutions who only exist to trouser big profits in the good times, and lay their losses at the door of the taxpayer after they have lucked out again.
I would consider my political views to be right of centre but this, so called, Socialist Government (collapses in fits of hysterical laughter) has an affinity for the rich and powerful that goes beyond mere infatuation.
Even in the Middle Ages they separated the kitchen from the rest of the house when they found it kept burning down the whole lot. The Labour government are either a bunch of imbeciles or so besotted with banks that they are incapable of being trusted in a room alone with them. Having come close to laying the world devastated on a boom based on trash securities, Darling's response is little more than encouragement to start all over again. I see no great difference between what the banks did and what another banker has been sent to jail for 150 years for in the USA.
It should have been demonstrated to banks that when they err from acceptable behaviour, the Grim Reaper comes visiting, whereas it appears Darling sent the Money Fairy.
Complain about this comment
29. TAG
33. majorroadaheadagain
I agree Pakistan is a major concern, but I question the role of the US (and ourselves) in Afghanistan.
An ideological war is being fought over a vast region. The UK needs to step back and reassess its role in this conflict. Afghanistan is divided both by geography and by faith. It was created as a buffer between two colonial powers, is it practical in the 21st century? Should we not be looking at more radical solutions rather than reinstating one questionable regime with another? After all the Northern Alliance has a worse track record than the Taliban. Is not it time to relook at the political boundaries of the region.
'Eurasia' is as vital in terms of energy supply and resources as the Middle East. Afghanistan is an important foothold in the region. Is our involvement not so much about the war on terror at home, but the positioning of a global power and our unquestioning support for it. If the right political framework is not created, one where local interests are at its heart, not the interests of a superpower, then the whole mission is doomed to fail.
Complain about this comment
33. At 09:21am on 03 Jul 2009, majorroadaheadagain wrote:
TAG
In 31 you identify the problem but then shy away from the only solution available to us. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Bin Laden is probably living in either Afghanistan or in Pakistan. He has access to huge sums of money and to fanatics in both countries who will give their lives to kill us. The Taliban are in both countries and their tentacles spread throughout on a basis of instilling fear so that they can take power. We have seen throughout the region how easy it is for people intent of terrorism and murder to take power by force.
The Americans cloud the issue by taking the iniative in what ought to be a United Nations campaign. It is not helped by their alleged description of their allies in Afghanistan as "Cheese eating surrender monkeys".
I have lived through 72 years of uncertainty, the worst of which was undoubtedly the fear it is easy to engender by the mere mention of nuclear weapons. But we know from 1945 in Japan what they can do. At least in the Sixties when JFK confronted the USSR we knew who had the weapons. There are said to be thousands in Pakistan which could all fall into the worst possible hands - supporters of bin Laden. If Hitler had got the atom bomb in 1944 we would not be writing these posts. If bin Laden gets them now then you can certainly forget about posting anything in the future.
To those who say get out of Afghanistan I say what do you do when bin Ladsen comes calling as he did in 2001, only this time with atom bombs? We have to stay for the long haul, and hope that we can defeat the Taliban and at the same time help to stabilise Pakistan.
===========================================
You are quite correct to highlight this. There are militant islamic supporters in every level and all areas of Pakistani society. Pakistani Intelligence services were compromised several years ago, and recently the militants are gradually influencing the army which previously was a militant free area.
Another problem for the Pakistan government, and that the western media studiously ignores is Kashmir province bordering India. Mortar shelling from both sides occurs on a daily basis, which means that the Pakistan army is fighting a war on two fronts. Indeed the focus has always been on India for the last decades, and only now are the Islamic militants being confronted.
If the Indian government could be persuaded to back down a bit, we may yet see a successful outcome and the Pakistan nuclear arsenal remaining in safe hands. It would be in India's best interests because the militants have already made clear what they think of Mumbai, and it was very easy for them to make a short boat trip by sea. Nuclear deterrents are all very well if you are facing a conventional large army, but do not deter a determined suicide bomber who is quite prepared to kill fellow muslims in order to carry out their mission.
Complain about this comment
The problem of the City Finance Houses goes back to the abolition of the difference between brokers and jobbers. They were kept apart for a reason, the same with clearing banks, and merchant banks (investment banks)and building societies.
I originally joined a merchant bank where a clearing bank had a financial interest, but at arms length. Clearing bankers and merchant bankers are different kinds of people. Never the twain shall meet.
It was 'big bang' which caused the problems, there were fundamental reasons why certain institutions were kept separate, they were manageable, they were controllable. The raised eye brow did work, deals were done over a week-end, the lifeboat for Nat West Bank was a classic, but other firms just disappeared overnight. The problem started with the crash of 1987 when the BP new issue came to the market and the government blinked, the market then began to realise that some things will not be allowed to happen, that some things are too big to fail.
All this is not new, Britain won the Great War because of Anglo Saxon economics, we had more access to money than the Germans did, it was the physical blockade by the Royal Navy and the economic blockade by Britain and America, we could not afford the Great War, it bankrupted us both economically and morally, same with Afghanistan and Iraq.
Complain about this comment
So, no CSR before the election, no identity cards, no part Royal Mail privatisation. What is the government doing at the moment, apart from nothing? Lat night's Questiontime was one of the best for weeks (apart from Jarvis Cocker who was a total embarrasment) Hattie Harman was really struggling and Ian Duncan-Smith sounded quite authoriative for once.
Please, if you guys have any influence, campaign as strongly as possible for the earliest possible General Election. We need things sorting out quickly - we can't have eleven more months of this lousy government.
Complain about this comment
I've only just caught up with last night's 'This Week' on IPlayer and was delighted to see that Will Hutton and I share the same view that for some bizarre and unbelievable reason the Government appear to need a session with Gamblers Anonymous.
Either Labour don't understand Capitalism or they are like a vicar who can't see ill in anyone no matter how much they watch them sin. The point about the people running financial institutions being brought to book over their recent behaviour is very valid, and I don't mean by just making them say sorry.
I don't understand Labour at the moment. They appear to have lost any idea of what part of the political spectrum they belong to and frankly are no longer a viable option. Allowing the Government to be run by a conviction politician like Lord Mandelson (ironic overload) has just left it confused, bereft of direction and ideology. They need to go away and mend themselves and they'll be given the opportunity to do that soon enough.
If the Tories indicate that they have the guts, competence and ability to re-form the financial institutions, then I could even vote for them, smply because leaving them in their current state is merely begging the scenario to repeat itself. I just simply cannot comprehend how a Socialist party feels too much in awe of bankers to limit their profligate and uncontrolled dealings.
They should send Lord Minky on a course in Socialism. Hob knobbing with the landed gentry has done hom no good at all.
Complain about this comment
To Majorroadaheadagain.
Ref:45 Tuesday.
I waited so as to give a considered reply to your comment where you write:"I fear most of all an authoritarian streak running through the government.
Your feeling of a threat to freedom is widely shared,and while I cannot speak for the government,the conditions of freedom have changed drastically in the last decade.
Do we live in a surveillance state?Yes we do,but this is a response by governments to circumstances they don`t control.One is terrorism and its link to organized crime,the other5 is the internet.
On September 11,2001,Muslim terrorists launched an attack on core US economic and military institutions.3000 people died and its psychological effect was equivalent to Pearl Harbour.In London,(2005),domestic terrorists tried to replicate this carnage on the underground,fifty two citizens died,some of them Muslim.
The US attack was directed via the internet from the badlands of Afghanistan.The internet was also used to transfer funds. Suicide videos were posted round the world. The British internet still hums with Jihadi chatter.
Use of the internet is part of an atomized society where social and geographical mobility has impaired community.We all inhabit the global village.Inside it our main source of opinion is the media,press,radio,TV and internet,and we absorb their agendas.An example is the widespread opinion that the NHS has got worse.But if you ask people for their personal experience of the service,over 90% say good or very good.The source of this discrepancy is the drip feed of negative stories in the media.They also run stories about restrictions on personal freedom, but are the first to demand more security if the terrorists succeed.
Surveillance cameras reinforce the feeling we are being photographed,eavesdropped and generally spied on.
Despite these pressures we maintain the institutions of an open society:Press freedom,free elections,freedom of opinion,movement and choice.No-one is murdered for criticizing the state.
This freedom was made plain to me on BBCs Question Time following 9/11 where the US amabassador was on the panel, and a howling mob explained why it was OK to murder 3000 people.The ambassador was almost in tears but hey,this is a free country.
I was ashamed.
Best wishes.
Bryher.
Complain about this comment
Good morning each & Andrew.
From #38 I take this text...
"...has access to huge sums of money and to fanatics in both countries who will give their lives to kill us. The Taliban are in both countries and their tentacles spread throughout on a basis of instilling fear so that they can take power. We have seen throughout the region how easy it is for people intent of terrorism and murder to take power by force."
Who is it that wages aggressive war?
Who is it that uses force to gain power?
Who is it that murders by mistake?
The answer?
Like the final 'little-piggy';
We-we-we! All the way home.
It is one thing to question and deride those who seek to kill in order to justify the fact that we must kill.
BUT
Where Oh where is the voice that cries out that the killing must end?
Pakisman,
Afghanisman,
Indiman,
Russiman,
Americman,
Britiman.
What dears we with "deafears" would be had we no "fear".
Complain about this comment
Oops!
"More haste; less speed."
Must do better. :(
All factions and actions.
Rather than; Care and share.
All people are in the self-same hole...yet we dig-dig-dig.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
I always miss your presence on Fridays after your late night Thursday sessions but there is one thing which I hope you will allow me to say. I thought that the boots worn by Anita today are absolutely fantastic, as for those heels. So, Andrew, if you want to increase your viewing figures then please let Anita out from behind the desk more often. Mind you you must have fantastic air conditioning at the Beeb, because most of us guys are now in shorts.
I thought that I have to be a bit frivolous because the news at the moment is just so sad. This cannot be allowed to carry on. I hope that we are going to see the Queen at the Wimbledon final on Sunday, but please no Brown, he must stay away, and no Mrs Brown either.
Complain about this comment
#43 oudeis
I think I read your comment in the way you meant it. But unfortunately we cannot wind the clock back. The west opened "Pandoras box" in the first place. Who knows what might have happened if the US had not chased Bin Laden out of Yemen, I think it was, into hiding in Afghanistan at the end of the last century? By all accounts Bin Laden was very peeved at having to leave his very luxurious lifestyle.
Complain about this comment
#46
Thank you.
Might I just say...
We here spend much time and effort in demanding honesty from others that we all should demand no less from ourselves.
BFN
Complain about this comment
43 Oudeis
If I understand your last line correctly - you say these actions we take against other countries are produced by 'fear'
We can legislate all we like on how to control people, countries, the world but we are still human beings - that is instinctive animals. It is a natural instinct in us to defend or attack anything which we feel threatens us as a species - be it another human being or another country or another religion.
We strive to be tolerant but the 'fear' you talk of always rears it's head - it's in our genes. We have just forgotten that we are 'instinctive animals'.
Complain about this comment
"On too many occasions targets have taken priority over patient safety in the National Health Service and a fear of legal action combined with a blame culture was stopping healthcare workers from blowing the whistle on poor practice, the Health Select Committee has said. As many as 10 per cent of patients who enter hospital can suffer harm, the committee reported, pointing out that the annual bill for NHS medical negligence is now over £630m."
I have personal experience of this and some of things I have experienced and witnessed have been terrible. I've stayed in two hospitals in my city and the difference between them is mind blowing. Just the difference in reaction to cardiac alarms, and there's no excuse for that.
Complain about this comment
42. bryhers
This freedom was made plain to me on BBCs Question Time following 9/11 where the US amabassador was on the panel, and a howling mob explained why it was OK to murder 3000 people.The ambassador was almost in tears but hey,this is a free country.
I was ashamed.
=
One cannot justify or condone 9/11. Nor can you justify the invasion or destabilisation of a sovereign country because their politics are in conflict with yours.
Greece, Cuba, South Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Jamaica, Chile, Nicaragua, Cyprus, East Timor, Grenada, Iran, Iraq...some of the countries where the US has been either directly or indirectly involved in supporting or instigating violence to further their own ends.
You can make a similar argument against communism but I'm just attempting to put things in some sort of perspective here.
Back in the 60s I was almost moved to tears watching news footage of innocent civilians being napalmed by a civilised western democracy. Then we had a Prime Minister who had the good sense to stay out of the war.
Complain about this comment
The case against the woman who was charged wih fraud over her application for a place for one of her children based on her residence at her mother's house for fourteen years (it was a matter of weeks rather than years) has been dropped. A good thing, for it had all the hall-marks of being uncomfortably close to what MPs have been doing for years to get their hands on our money and not one of them has been charged. However, it does raise the more serious point about "education, education, education" from 1997 and the word which has come to signify most what the woman was trying to achieve for her child - choice.
Th first relevant Education Act for our recent society (the so-called Butler Act) of 1944 said that education should be focused on the spiritual, mental and physical well-being of each individual member of the community, and that it had to be child-centred. I was one of the first beneficiaries of that Act, being in the first draft of spotty boys to be grantd a scholarship (in my case to the Brighton, Hove and Sussex Grammar School). It was previously a fairly elite middle and upper class place where students went on to be Ministers of the Crown, Ministers of the Cloth, and people who ministered unto others. The best boy (in my view) went on to be centre forward for Brighton and Hove Albion. I was in the first intake of oiks, and it was an uncomfortable experience. The process had gone from being one entirely of privilege to one of selection through examination. Where I lived had only limited relevance as to which Grammar School I attended.
Fast forward to 1997 and "education education education". The focus on spirituality diminished - it only raised its when it was a question of what children wore. The issue of physical well-being became hugely compromised by the selling-off of sports fields. All we were left with was the mental aspect of the 1944 Act, a great deal of fiddling with the idea of what a syllabus should comprise and the notion that education would improve in direct proportion to how much money you threw at it. A significant number of Ministers came and went, and the opposition went into each election charging the government that their education policies had failed.
I think the case of the woman from Harrow is vital if we are to understand how education should go forward so that it is child-centred. Both parties throw around the word choice as if it is something that can be both offered and achieved. In my view it is the worst nonsense that could be perpetrated. Choice is impossible for two reasons - the first is that as people become more savvy so they identify a long time in advance where they want their children to go. They will go to extraordinary lengths to achieve this aim, either by moving home (often to somewhere more expensive or less advantageous for the family) or by lying about their circumstances. The biggest problem with this is that we are back to 1944. My family didnt have a clue about education then, and so I would have gone to wherever I was sent. There are millions of people like that today who are either ignorant or uncaring about their child's edcuation. So we are back to the best schools getting what the savvy parents regard as the best pupils and the worst schools getting a mixture of good and bad. Nothing wrong with that as a comprehensive view, except the best teachers are usually attracted to the best schools.
Following on from that, the second is that parents are often hopelessly biased when it comes to the ability of their child. Naturally they want the best for them. They believe either that their child is the best or that by sending their child to the best school they will become the best. They will go to extraordinary lengths to get what they think is the best - as in Harrow Woman.
Take all that false and largely unachievable aspiration and add the veneer of league tables and you have a situation where success or failure becomes the mantra, where parents sometimes get disillusioned by their children and children can rebel against the whole thing. Is that rally "child-centred" system?
A lot of people here will have up to date experience of their own children. Mine is taken from my observation of my own children and their handling of how and where my grandchildren are educated. It has been much more tortuous and at times harrowing (apologies) than anything my parents had to face. However, I think the Woman From Harrow ought to spark some reaction.
Complain about this comment
#51
My educational experience seems to have been very similar to yours - first intake into former public school in September 1944. Most of my fellow pupils who started at the same time were also from poor backgrounds.
However, that's by the way. I just wanted to say that I agree totally with you on the mythical subject of 'choice'. Politicians should stop using the word in relation to education; it doesn't really exist for most children.
I have said in earlier posts that, for primary schools, government focus should be on bringing them all up to an acceptable standard, which would eliminate the need for choice. And for secondary schools an updated, more sophisticated version of the 1944 tripartite system would yield much better results and wider options than are achieved at present.
Complain about this comment
The Blame game:
I was describing my personal response to a human tragedy, and will leave you to review US foreign policy.
Geronimo Jones.
Instances of poor clinical practice in the NHS, and anecdotal evidence do not invalidate the experience of the majority.
Complain about this comment
With the closure of Mr Robinson's blog and in the hope that the moderators will be kind may I respectfully suggest that this weekend on this blog is devoted to discussion on two of the major issues affecting the Country at this time, namely Pensions and Education.
The former in my opinion has the potential to wreck any recovery that might follow the mess that this Government has made of our economy and the latter, if we were to get it right, has the potential to improve the Country both socially and economically.
Complain about this comment
53. At 5:47pm on 03 Jul 2009, bryhers
I was describing my personal response to a human tragedy, and will leave you to review US foreign policy.
=
Like I said, violence against innocent civilians can never be justified. My post was not questioning your reaction to the audience, which was absolutely understandable.
It was just my own personal observation; the sad irony of the US Ambassador you mention brought close to tears by an insensitive audience, and a long record of human rights violations and duplicitous behaviour with regards the slaughter of innocent civilians by the world's beacon of democracy. As with all conflicts it's the innocent that bear the brunt.
Complain about this comment
# 53
"Instances of poor clinical practice in the NHS, and anecdotal evidence do not invalidate the experience of the majority."
Agreed bryhers - that's why I quoted the Health Select Committee which was pretty damming.
My concern is that poor clinical practice should be considered acceptable at all. In my own example, simple omissions have caused considerable unnecessary cost to the NHS, apart from anything else.
Complain about this comment
In response to oldreactionary's request I quote below a gem indicative that the Government's 'head in the sand' treatment of financial forecasting is becoming worryingly commonplace.
"The Treasury has claimed it is already acting to rein in its pension bill by raising the normal pension age to 65 for new entrants and capping taxpayers' contributions if life expectancy continues to improve.
However, Yvette Cooper, the chief secretary to the Treasury admitted that the Government has no idea how much the measures will save.
Previous estimates that £13bn will be cut from liabilites for teachers, NHS and service schemes over 50 years from 2006 are now "obsolete" and producing a new figure would be disproportionately expensive, Ms Cooper said earlier this month."
How very peculiar. They don't know and don't care I presume.
Complain about this comment
56 GeronimoJ
A Health Care Commission report accepted that poor practice, allegedly to achieve govt targets, killed between 1200 and 400 people at Stafford hospital between 2005 and 2008.
Is that enough incidences and anecdotal examples to satisfy the doubters?
Why no corporate manslaughter investigation? Dunno Just like MPs I suppose.
Complain about this comment
Andrew can you please tell Duff hes well past his sell by date.
It's a pity Duff has not got the same set of balls as this person.
Complain about this comment
16. T A Griffin (TAG)
Banckrupted by a bunch of Scottish MPs? Oh, you mean those pesky Scots who established your bank of England eh? Yes, those pesky damn incompetent Scottish MPs like Thatchers defence minister George Younger? Or perhaps Sir Malcom Rifkind?
Which Scottish MPs are the evil mechanists manipulating to Banckrupt England, please elabourate. Ah yes, you must mean Scottish MPs like Norman Lamont, one of my parties grandees.
You getting my point yet? Less of the anti-Scottish nonsense. If you had made the criticism 'those Scottish MPs like Darling and Brown' or 'those who support incompetent economic policies' that would be fair criticism. But may I point out to you that inummerable English MPs support Brown and his economic policies- why are you singling out those Scots MPs for your attack? Creating a scape-goat are we, all Scottish MPs are guilty, regardless of personal opinion, vote record or even party affiliation!
Apologise of face the fact you simply are anti-Scottish.
Complain about this comment
54. oldreactionary wrote
With the closure of Mr Robinson's blog and in the hope that the moderators will be kind may I respectfully suggest that this weekend on this blog is devoted to discussion on two of the major issues affecting the Country at this time, namely Pensions and Education.
----
Pensions, let me start here perhaps. Or more specifically discuss the problem of a growing pensions crisis (or ought that be plural crises?)
The problem is the current system of linking the state pension to contributions for those younger in work is no longer a sustainable method of state pensions provision. In fact it seems that the only method of pensions provision is either another baby-boom (but we cant engineer this) so as to head of the problem of too many pensions matched with too few younger people; or another more radical suggestion.
Might the answer lay in a two fold approach of compelling long term employers to provide private company pensions schemes (ofset in overall costs for the firm through EU subsidy or UK tax exemptions?), and a new savings culture.
Complain about this comment
# 58
Yes xTunbridge, when I first saw that headline I couldn't believe that there wasn't going to be a major police investigation.
UK law applies within hospitals to my knowledge.
Complain about this comment
#60
I just want a free England, with our own parliament, with no transfer of wealth to a foreign country, the Union has served its purpose, it is time for an English referendum on devolution, I think that there are an awful lot of free thinkers who have come to the same conclusion as myself.
I am no more anti-scottish then I am anti-french, german or any other country. In fact I consider that the establishment of any state is divisive, we are all just human beings, what is it about borders, about rulers, about setting one person against another because they are somehow different, there is no difference, one world, total freedom, no borders.
Complain about this comment
54 oldreactionary
I endorse your post that discusion should be widened.
At the same time I must express some puzzlement at Nicks closed blog.
Not only have regular contributors had their posts not posted at all but posts originally cleared by the Mods have been subsequently removed.
I do not know how to approach this. Can anyone advise on an approach that will engender an explanation as to what is going on without me being Modded off the blog?
I find it difficult to believe that Nick and Andrew have different Mods but it feels that way.
Complain about this comment
63 T A Griffen
I just want a free England, with our own parliament
I think there is a danger of too many parliaments. An English Parliament in addition to Westminster would just create another tier of bureaucracy. But the reason it seems attractive is because of the half-baked, one sided devolution for Scotland created by a Scottish dominated labour party. The status quo is obviously unacceptable because we have Scottish MPs sitting in Westminster making laws for England, when the same MPs have no say in matters affecting their own Scottish constituencies - because those issues are decided at Holyrood. It's a complete mess!
Now I read with dismay that David Cameron wants to give local councils 'substantial additional powers'.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8131282.stm
This would be a dreadful for mistake. Most local councils are totally inept and useless. Important decisions are made by unelected officials, then nodded through in 'cabinet' behind closed doors. The last thing we need is more powerful councils. Local authorities should have responsibility for collecting rubbish (weekly!) and repairing roads and streetlights, nothing more. I would actually want powers taken away from local authorities.
Complain about this comment
TAG
I am not interested in having a vote on English devolution. I want one on Scottish devolution. If the Scots can vote on English matters then why cant we the English vote on Scottish ones? A union is about fairness to all, but this one is grossly unfair to the English in the most important matters like education and health.
Incidentally, under my proposal if only one third of the people of Scotland wanted devolution but two thirds of the people of the United Kingdom wanted the Scots to be fully devolved where that would leave us?
Complain about this comment
distant @ 65
I agree with you ... "devolving" power to smaller units (e.g. local councils, tiny little so called countries like Wales/Scotland) just leads to (a) more bureaucracy and (b) politics intruding where it has no place ... let's have national government doing the politics and local government emptying the bins
Complain about this comment
#65
I agree that a proliferation of parliaments is the last thing we want, and also that political parties who constantly promise more power to local authorities are dangerous and should be avoided.
The optimum solution to the West Lothian question is Scottish independence, leaving the Westminster parliament to the English (and probably Welsh). Many Scots have resented union with England ever since it occurred, and nearly half now want independence - a significant increase over the last few decades. The trends indicate that independence will come, sooner or later.
As for local authorities, I shudder to think of the consequences of greatly increased powers. As you say, we would be safer if their freedom of action were to be strictly limited to ESSENTIAL local services, nothing more.
Complain about this comment
Good Morning Andrew,
I hope that this is of interest to you and your commenteers but I have just received my first Claim Form for Winter Fuel Payment and there is a from attached which lists the exceptions.
Now this I find interesting because apparently I will not be eligible for payment if, in the qualifying week:
you are living in a care home, an independent hospital or (now wait for it) Ilford Park Polish Resttlement Home (and have been for the preceding 12 weeks or more).
Now what on earth has happened so that the residents of Ilford Park Polish Resettlement Home are not entitled to payment. Why them, what sort of system is it that has to identify them specifically as not having eligibility.
When I started to work in the City Capital Gains Tax was brought in, I wish I had kept the original leaflet I received to enable to calculate CGT for our investors. I think I could now fill a wall with books on Capital Gains Tax, just abolish it, make all gains subject to income tax, CGT was for a time when there was massive inflation, that is why all the allowances had to be brought in, so with deflation and the abolition of boom and bust, we surely should abolish Capital Gains Tax, that is unless some people think there will be a return of rapant inflation, I for one do. Why do you think government bonds are exempt from CGT, yes because you you will possibly buy a Gilt in the Market and pay GBP130 for GBP100 nominal of stock, and guess what? The government guarantees to repay on redemption GBP100, without fail, except in War Loan that is.
However, as usual I have digressed, so why Ilford Park Polish Resettlement Home, anybody help.
Complain about this comment
Good morning each & Andrew.
And you TAG.
You may be better able to decipher this than I.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
BBS
Complain about this comment
New article in the Times:
Treasury announces bonfire of quangos to save taxpayer millions.
Despite government claims that the number of quangos is falling, at least 40 new bodies have been created since Gordon Brown took over as Prime Minister in June 2007. The Treasury has admitted that 160 of the biggest quangos cost the taxpayer GBP34 billion last year.
The TaxPayers Alliance estimated that in 2006-07 there were more than a thousand quangos and agencies, which cost the taxpayer more than GBP64 billion.
The Treasury has also admitted that the Ministry of Justice alone has 200 quangos.
Better late than never, I suppose!
One suggestion if they need a guy to top the bonfire may I suggest Duff.
Complain about this comment
Tut-tut, silly me and my 'pdf' link in my last post to TAG.
TAG, please Google IPPRH the guidelines are there to be read in HTML also.
Complain about this comment
What is this? "All new members are pre-moderated initially"
As soon as I grow up are my posts to appear unmoderated?
Complain about this comment
Morning all
63 & 69 TAG
Heard last night on Today in Parliament the question dear to your heart was being discussed but forgotten the name of the two MP's doing the talking. One for and one against. At least its getting an airing, it was mentioned about the increasing demand to resolve the question of Scottish MP's voting etc. etc.
As regards the Ilford Park Polish Resettlement Home, don't know, could it be that they have heating supplied by Government anyway. Sounds something like that by the title, never heard of it before.
64 xTunbridge
This was because of the Rules. I don't think there are different 'Mods' just some are more strict that others! We all make mistakes but sometimes they like to press the Rules home.
Complain about this comment
Wonder if the BBC can be considered as a Quango?
Complain about this comment
#73 Oudeis
I wondered that.
When I post a comment the following appears:
Where's my comment?All new members are pre-moderated initially, which means that there will be a short delay between when you post your comment and when it appears while one of our moderators checks it.
Yet directly below that this is shown:
All posts are pre-moderated.
When do you become part of the establishment? After all I have been blogging on NR site for over a year!
Complain about this comment
If there's one characterising feature of this government, it's that there isn't a problem that they feel can't be solved by throwing a shedload of our money at it.
We all know that such a solution provides a short lasting euphoria induced thrill, especially if you happen to be hoofing money into your back pocket at the same time.
However, reckoning time, often referred to as 'cold turkey', is when debt counselling and perhaps even psychotherapy is required to discover why, instead of facing up to issues, they try to buy favour with our money.
There might be some insane logic to it if the spree had been spent in the right places. I doubt that supporting the 'funny money' operations of major financial institutions conforms to that requirement. They might as well have invested in 'one arm bandits'.
Complain about this comment
#74
Thanks for that I will look up the debate on the parliament web site. Sounds really interesting, I mean two MPs, now that shows the interest there is in parliament. I think you will find that they discuss it because they read of the issue all the time on Andrew's blog. You know that we have more influence than some people care to mention.
I notice that Obama is going to Moscow next week, now that is really good news because why exactly are we bothering with the Trident replacement, what is the point. If America tells us that they are going to scrap their deterrent, or greatly reduce it, then why are we spending billions on this failed weapon. I mean how many billions have already been spent, and still we lose soldiers in Afghanistan to an IED, maybe that is what we ought to invest in, as well as Reaper, and Predator. I mean it's all about Harry at his terminal, doing 'bad things to bad guys'
Complain about this comment
By the way a blogger on a previous NR blog found the calculator that Crash Gordon uses.
I feel sure that Duff will not mind you using it. Have fun!!!!!
Complain about this comment
...my-my but we all arose with a spring in our step this morning.
D demonstrably
E egalitarian
M moderated
O occasionally (by)
C circumstances
R relating (to the)
A ambitions (of)
T those
I in
C charge.
Complain about this comment
TAG 69
There is a general preumption against Ilford because it is in Essex.
Complain about this comment
74 Japanbytes
I think you are correct that some like to use their blue pencil more.
However , I keep banging this drum, I believe some of the "moderation" is unlawful. I know the site(s) are owned and run by the BBC and they can therefore decide what goes on and who plays in the teams, but there is article 10 of the human rights act which guarantees us all the right to hold and share opions without interference from a public body.
This is a qualified right and obviously obscene or actionable posts can be removed but I would suggest not ones that someone just dont like or agree with and this is happening, especially on Nicks site.
Complain about this comment
#81
It is not Essex but 'ethics' where the animosity is directed.
Complain about this comment
TAG I suppose it is in there because Ilford is in Essex
Complain about this comment
What are they going to do with the knighthood that Gordon was going to confer on Andy Murray on Monday?
Complain about this comment
There was a well reasoned comment in yesterday's Times about whether Israel would attack Iran if they get nuclear weapons. It is a frightening scenario, for in my view it could be the final spark that would set the planet alight. There may be a similar debate shortly about who would attack whom if North Korea goes the same way. The signs are ominous. Then there is the doomsday question of what would happen if the Taliban get hold of any of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.
All the chatter about Brown and his debt, about independence for the Scots or whether Michael Owen will be a success at Man U seem fairly trivial in this context. Is this just unneccessary alarmism or should we be as interested in seeking nuclear abolition as we are on saving the planet from global warming? If so, how do we do it?
Complain about this comment
86 Majorroadetc
Bet your hair is white !
We none of us know our fate day to day with "normal" grim reaper events like road accidents and a peanut going down the wrong hole etc.
So dwelling on events of an armaggedon type that are way beyond our control is a bit of an exercise in driving oneself into a Howard Hughes type insanity.
This does not mean that you dont poke your MP or whoever for them to keep an eye on such things but you and me mate can do little if anything.
That is why one should surely, within reason, live each day as if it were your last.
Complain about this comment
XTunbridge
I agree with a lot of what you say. I have been there having been paralysed from Guillain Barre. I now live each day as if it were my first rather than last. And yes, my hair is white.
My thought in the posting was about the comment in the Times on a possible invasion of Iran by Israel, and a realisation of the sort of people who might be holding our fate in their hands - on the one side Ahmadinejad and on the other Netanyahu. It is just that nuclear proliferation just makes global warming and the global economic crisis look like small beer, and while it is true there is little we can do about it, we ought to make sure our representatives are aware of our concerns. Not like CND, but rather like parents looking outfor their children.
Complain about this comment
86 Majorroadaheadagain and 88 xTunbridge
This is something we have to get used to, as with all nuclear weapons, once you have them, they become obsolete. It is impossible to use them without annihilating the majority of ourselves.
We must hope that those now trying to acquire them will see this and behave accordingly. As to extremists, unfortunately their view is sometimes slightly skewed. In that they prefer to die for their cause and take everyone with them so there is little that we can do about these people.
As to what we can do about all this - well Churchill said it didn't he - blah, blah, blah as opposed to war, war, war.
Complain about this comment
I suspect that if everyone literally lived each day as if it were their last, blogs would instantly become obsolete. There must be better things to do in your last 24 hours.
But regarding the frightening spectre of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands, there are at least 4 options that might be discussed, namely:
1) Wait and see what happens, fingers crossed.
2) Step up high powered diplomacy to try to get significant reductions or total abolition in the most volatile regions. Carrot and stick approach?
3) Take the initiative and forcibly remove the worst dangers - as in Saddam's WMD scenario.
4) Invest heavily in defensive research to perfect 'Star Wars' type systems against missiles, and parallel efforts to detect any smuggling of 'dirty' bombs for use in suicide missions.
Any others?
Complain about this comment
#s 88,89,90...
Bombs are not tools.
All bombs are bad bombs.
All hands are wrong hands, that hold bombs.
If one man [sorry ladies, I intend no naked sexism]
If one man can do nothing then no man can.
If we were to get rid of all Nuclear Weapons there would ever be the danger of 'dirty-bombs'.
We, [mankind] at this moment practise 'mutual-destruction' by our wars of attrition.
War is simply worthwhile in monetary terms. Short terms, that is.
Complain about this comment
Majorroad etc.
Please enjoy your garden and your grandchildren, for it is in this joy that all hope resides.
Complain about this comment
Oudeis
Thank you. The phlox, the dahlias and an assortment of other stunning plants are just coming into full bloom. Together with the grandchildren it is the greatest pleasure you can derive - watching something grow in whose creation you had a hand. However, we need a little bit of extra curricula pleasure from what politics and life can throw up, which is why I tak pleasure from these boards. You learn a lot. Incidentally, I first started in 1999 on the CNBC boards for the Al Gore/George W election. I went on making a mild comment about the value of Bill Clinton (under the name Britman) and the whole Nation rose up against me. I came to learn who "Soreloserman" was. Like here, what I found was that the democrats all fled the boards, or had their own consolation ones. Is the same thing happening here with Gordon Brown? Does someone like Roy hattersley have a blog where they all take solace?
Complain about this comment
Also, one wonders who is currently whipping up a storm about Osbourne at the moment... three guesses
http://moralorder.mediumisthemess.com/blog/
Complain about this comment
"Religion is the opium of the people"
Karl Marx said that but Henry VIII and Stalin knew better. They saw it as a political rival, and despots know how to deal with other despots.
Democracy doesn't sit well with religion because you can't argue with your God. The downside is that when the people get cheesed off with their government, they lose faith in their God too.
Once governmnts resort to torturing and shooting their own people, the countr can either go the way of Burma and North Korea with total repression, or China with a gradual easing of control to allow the pressure to escape slowly.
Iran's current posturing is actually a sign of its weakness. They are undoubtedly annoyed and disconforted by the BBC TV programmes beamed their way, but choosing to pick a fight with Britain is evidence that they aren't in the mood for a proper fight with a world power.
The Iranian government may get the acquiescence of its people by show trials and arrests but it won't obtain their support that way. The West should nod their heads and smile at their antics, after all they have sovereignty over their people. With concerns about internal fracture they'll be loss of a problem internationally and less confident of adopting high risk strategies.
Complain about this comment
TAG
Just got round to googling Ilford Park Polish Home.(Devon)
Its worth a look. Roughly built on a former U.S. Army hospital, 40 odd acres, using the old wartime buildings and was all but derelict until 1992 when part of it was rebuilt and it is run by the MOD.
Only those who qualify under the 1947 Polish resetlement Act can live there ???????????????????? 62 years on ????????????/
Complain about this comment
#95
Am I to take it that...
Lying to wage war, supporting foreign protests while dismissing/banning/licencing 'official' protest at home, etc. is a sign of our strength?
Propper fight??
"Those fuzzy-wuzzies don't like it up-em."?
The only way forward is to accept all problems are (my) our problems...for we are the only thing that we have sovranty over.
Complain about this comment
96 xTunbridge
Just sneaked a look at the 1947 Polish Resettlement Act and it seems that the Polish people who fought alongside us during the war were allowed to settle here and were provided accommodation etc. I presume that the Ilford Park Polish Home (Devon) is more like a nursing home but with the benefit of providing for their particular needs, language etc. So it would seem that they don't qualify for Winter Fuel Allowance.
Complain about this comment
94; Nick Bloggins.
Stop this Victorian gentility for God`s sake,the man`s name is Osborne.
Did he buy his own furniture?
Complain about this comment
Hi Guys, trust you are all well. I have been away for a few days to recharge my batteries and topup the tan and I hope to catch up with all the blogs shortly. Nothing too exciting in the blogs either by the looks of things.
Nothing exciting in my intray upon my return, the email ban from Exeter City and Devon County Council STILL not lifted and my Tory MP wannabe not been in contact either.
Kind regards to all
Complain about this comment
Labour MPs attack Martin slur.
These numpties in never never land just dont get it, do they.
Mystery surrounds repayment list.
Westminster's attempt at greater transparency on MPs' expenses has hit a mysterious roadblock after it emerged that a committee chaired by John Bercow, the new Commons Speaker, quietly shelved the official list of repayments.
Ah well I guess its back to business as usual.
Complain about this comment
deanthetory 60
I know you have a habit of dropping comments without returning for an answer. However I will say it anyway, it appears these days that it is more important to be a Scot than a Tory (or Conservative as I prefer) judging by the comments you have made. Yet you seem to be saying that we have no right to put being English before politics.
(TAG) 16 is right. England has had to take on the bail out of Scottish banks, and it is a Scottish PM which has brought this Country to its knees. It is quite ridiculous for a PM to be in charge of a Country making laws and policy for that Country, when it does not affect his own Constituency. There is not doubt what-so-ever that the RBS and HBOS bailouts would have fallen to Scotland had they been independent, as the parent company alway pays.
In my opinion RBS should have been taken under the wing of the BOE and broken up to make a much smaller bank, outside interests sold off and toxic debt identified. HBOS was a completely toxic bank and should have been allowed to fail, instead of a merger with a good conservative (note little "c") bank such as Lloyds. The only reason HBOS was saved was to win the Glenrothes bi-election and to save jobs in Scotland. England has suffered for Scottish politics and it is Browns tribal battle with the SNP which has put England at such a disadvantage. It is not anti Scottish to tell the facts. Scotland does receive more money than England under the Barnett formular I have seen it for myself when I lived there.
Scotland has a very small population compared to England and has its own Parlaiment, therefore it should not be controlling England's democracy. This is quite wrong. It is time for us to go our separate ways as the rift will never be healed. England is the only Country in the union not to have its own Parliament and this is grossly unfair. Who at the moment is representing us?
Scotlands devolution has cost a massive amount of money and yet on recent polls it has made very little difference to the the lives of most Scots. This indicates that they were getting a very fair deal in the first place. Well now it is Englands right to ask for their own Parliament or Independence.
The Bank Of England was formed by William Paterson in 1694 who was indeed a Scot, that does not mean we wanted him to run our Country. How far back do you want to go.
Complain about this comment
XEXXONMOBIL 100
Welcome back, I have missed you, I was only asking about you the other day.
Complain about this comment
In 1998
Crash Gordon was unveiling his crisis plan
In 1999
Flush Gordon gave us The Economy Global financial reform warning.
11 years on:
In 2008 Downing St. admitted they knew about the Housing Bubble but decided to run with it!
Today:
Darling issues warning to bankers.
Meanwhile, the Bank of England is expected to be given a key role in assessing risk to the system as well as individual banks. Furthermore, it will be handed the task of preventing future booms from turning into bubbles.
The above items speak volumes. Pity Duff did not practice what he preached at home starting 12 years ago. Crash Gordon since he became PM has been led by events, many of them of his own making.
And some people want this guy at the tiller!
Complain about this comment
Andrew you say The jokes on us
I would put it a little differently:
The politicians are piddling on our shoes and telling us its raining.
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile back at the NuLabour ranch:
Whitehall lines up 'doomsday' cutbacks.
Secret 'doomsday' plans for 20% cuts in public spending are being prepared by senior civil servants, who fear politicians are failing to confront the scale of the budget black hole.
Complain about this comment
Mandelson holds back report on Rover collapse.
Peter Mandelson was accused last night of a cover-up after delaying the publication of a GBP16m taxpayer-funded report into the collapse of MG Rover, the carmaker.
Oh dear - Things can only get better.
Complain about this comment
95.
"..opiate.."
Complain about this comment
89.
QUOTATION: To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.
ATTRIBUTION: WINSTON CHURCHILL, remarks at a White House luncheon, June 26, 1954. His exact words are not known, because the meetings and the luncheon that day were closed to reporters, but above is the commonly cited version.
Free quotation correction service by TheBlameGame
Complain about this comment
102 Croftie
I can see where Saga is coming from you write a damn good post.
I hope you are considering standing for Parliament when GB is forced to abandon his delusional position.
100 xexxonmobil
Yes welcome back to echo Croftie.
Complain about this comment
# 67 sagamix and
# 68 mike-jay
Another good reason not to give more power to local authorities as Town halls urged to raise fees for motorists and leisure centres according to a report in The Telegraph.
If David Cameron thinks voters want local authorities to have "substantial additional powers" he is very badly mistaken. Local Authorities should not be given any new powers to raise stealth taxes or make life a misery for those whom they represent.
Far for giving Local Authorities more powers, many existing powers should be removed - including the ability to snoop on individuals using RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000).
This report on how anti-terrorism laws are used by one council to spy on noisy children, plus many other abuses.
Local Authorities should focus on weekly rubbish collections and repairing the roads - nothing else! [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator][Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
"The origin German text, in Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, 1843 is:
Die Religion... ist das Opium des Volkes"
I did check.
Complain about this comment
Cherie Blair backs SNP over Labour.
Cherie Blair, the wife of the former prime minister, has dealt an embarrassing blow to Labour by praising the SNP's "courageous" plans to reform Scotland's prison system.
Wonder if Duff will choke on his cornflakes when he reads this at breakfast?
Complain about this comment
If we're never going to enforce banking regulations and allow banks to perform whatever chicanery takes their fancy, I don't know why we bother.
This was all meant to have been taken care of by Basel II. Leaving the motorist to police the roads would have much the same effect, and as most bankers have been left in position with little sanction, they must be blinking in wonderment at what they've managed to pull off.
All these wondrous forum and meetings of the great banking brains assume honesty in the banking world, which is quite a hoot after what has just happened. If risk is dishonestly assessed or obfuscated then relying on banks to self report is patently a waste of effort. Much like relying on the Mafia to honestly complete self assessment tax returns.
We either elect to office some of the worlds stupidest politicians or they're all corrupt. In either instance the 'stupid' gene must play an important part as the politicians are the ones taking the blame.
As it now appears that the UK taxpayer is bankrolling our banks (irrespective of whether we own shares in them) then we should have them under very strict control, especially as we may not even be fully aware of what the multi national ones are doing in far flung markets like China.
When banks start announcing unusual profits, that's when people should start checking their books.
Complain about this comment
# 111 me
Dear mods - I see you have removed a broken/unsuitable link. Perhaps I mistyped something. The link was to a report in the Telegraph about how a local authority used RIPA powers to make recordings after a complaint about noisy children. The report gave several other examples of how this power has been abused.
This was intended to illustrate an earlier point as to why local authorities should not be given more powers as David Cameron has proposed.
I'm not sure what the problem with the link was, perhaps it was just a typo, but anyone interested in the story can look it up.
Complain about this comment
Thanks Susan 103 and Xtunbridge 110 for your kind words.
I am a wee bit worried about David Cameron's proposals to give more power to local authorities.The Tories have been in power several weeks here in Exeter and my email ban is still in place,hence, I am unable to contact the new local authorities by email.
Unison have washed their hands on the PFI issues which I raised by saying, I should contact the HSE ref the health and safety issues. The HSE have ignored my correspondence to date.
In the event of a Unison Teacher being seriously injured or killed at one of the Exeter Schools, I think the Unison General Secretary will have some explaining to do?! In my view Unison should be kicking doors down at Devon County Council and getting some answers.
Just a couple of developements during my hols were:
1. The FOI are STILL dealing with my request for data at one of the Exeter PFI schools. Can't understand why that FOI request is taking so long?
2.The deadline date of 25th June has expired for my FOI request to the Devon County Council for Lightning Protection System results to their HQ for the last 10 years.
The prospective Tory MP for Exeter has not responded to any of my complaints which we discussed at a meeting 3weeks ago. These people don't appear to have any sense of urgency,do they?
It's good to be back guys,
Complain about this comment
We may well see some future prosecutions against Devon County Council ref the PFI schools
__________________________________________________________________________
Plymouth City Council fined £5,000 following gas offences prosecution
Plymouth City Council was prosecuted at Plymouth Magistrates Court for a failure to systematically carry out any gas safety checks in Local Education Authority (LEA) schools within Plymouth between July 2003 and October 2005.
The HSE investigation was prompted by a report of a dangerous gas fitting in Hyde Park Junior Schools kitchen in February 2006. It subsequently found defective gas appliances at a number of schools. HSE is satisfied that remedial action has been taken to remedy the breaches.
Plymouth City Council pleaded guilty to Regulation 35 of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 and was fined £5,000. It was also ordered to pay costs of £6,500 plus a £15 Victim Surcharge.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Melissa Lai-Hung said: "This case highlights the importance of using trained and approved engineers to carry out regular servicing and maintenance of all gas appliances - whether you're an institution, business or ordinary householder.
All employers, including councils, have a duty of care towards their employees and members of the public - including pupils and school staff, as in this case. Failure to take this duty seriously can result in terrible injury or death.
"The gas industry approval body has just changed hands from CORGI to the Gas Safe Register and everyone, be they employer or householder, now needs to check that, when employing an engineer, s/he is registered with the Gas Safe Register.
"All gas appliances should be serviced and maintained by a Gas Safe Register engineer at least once a year. Any advice given by such a trained professional needs to be followed. We all need to remember that, with gas, you might not get a second chance."
Complain about this comment
Does Unison have a duty of care to protect their members. Please allow me to give you the worst case scenario (WCS) ref the Exeter PFI school issues.
WCS example , say next week one of the schools is struck by lightning and two teachers and 6 kids are killed inside the building which was not provisioned with Lightning Protection Systems.
The question I pose to this blog, where does Unison stand in such a situation, as they knew or should have known the school was unfit for purpose.There is no question that they KNOW about the unfit situation at the schools because I have informed them.
The same question could be asked of the Head Teachers,Board of Governors,LEA,Local Council, there would certainly be some V twitchy people around trying to protect their own as---,me thinks??!!
Complain about this comment
Roll_on_2010
The article about doomsday cuts of 20% is interesting because it is being prepared by Senior Civil Servants. I was one such individual up until 1997 (as a head of finance and administration for a government department). Back then I was one of only a handful of Principal Establishment and Finance Officers (PEFO) who was a qualified management accountant. Few if any of the big departments' finance functions were run by a qualified person. This is not an attempt to sing the praises of accountants - up until bankers we had a pretty poor press. It was just that the civil service had always been run by gifted amateurs, the PEFO post was often seen as a necessary step on the way towards becoming Permanent Secretary. It was not a post for radicals or reformists but for status quoists.
The trouble for me is that the current critical exercise is in the hands of those same gifted amateur senior civil servants with clearly defined career paths. From my experience there will be masses of opinions in the lower ranks about what is going wrong and how money could be saved, but they have no voice. When they do come forward they often earn the description of whistle-blowers.
In my post of 27 June I suggested that the first 10% of any cuts in the service would be relatively painless to consumers and public servants. I bet posters on here could come up with masses of savings of the same magnitude just based on their own experiences of using the Public Service. That is why I am dubious about it being in the wrong hands.
Incidentally, while I know mention of Mrs Thatcher normally invokes some fairly tart comments, she did publish (1982?) The Financial Management Initiative, which defined the three e's so often used now. The first two, economy and effectiveness are fairly easy to both define and to tackle, even in Government. The third, efficiency, is the holy grail for achieiving the right level of public expenditure for the services we need. In my day we had to report efficiency savings each year. Had they been achieved at the level required at the time I am sure we would not be looking at deficits today. I have no experience of the private sector but as efficiency represents the one real chance to improve our financial well-being why is it so difficult to both define and achieve?
Complain about this comment
Powers to local authorities
What these proposals set out to achieve is all well and good. However I would think that the level of competence and professionalism of local councils differs vastly across the country.
One advantage is that it is easier to burn down the local council offices than it is the Houses of Parliament!
112. GJ
'Opiate' translation used far more widely than original. Does sound better. Trust the English to tell the Germans what they meant to say. :-)
Complain about this comment
"There was controversy earlier this year when it emerged an executive of the NHS, received a £40,000 housing allowance for taking a London job, even though he already had a flat in the capital. Similar deals are enjoyed by other quango chiefs who have homes in the country and also in London."
-------------------------------------
I'm sorry to say it but there's a mutual trouser stuffing operation that'll take years to clean up and it's all the more sickening in view of the pain and suffering ordinary people will suffer in the coming months.
It is the more galling in that organisations like the NHS are clamouring for more money, but like MP's, it appears their executives are more interested in their personal finances.
Complain about this comment
distant @ 115
with you on this, don't see why we should have "Labour" or "Conservative" councils ... is there (apart from, say, the binmen wearing red or blue rosettes) a distinctive Labour versus Tory approach to rubbish collection?
Complain about this comment
Interesting interview from John Major with Andrew Marr - the implication was that both parties are understating the extent of the cutbacks required and that tax rises hand in hand with spending cuts may be inevitable.
Still in the words of Brown it could be a zero percent tax increase.
Who is going to be brave enough to bring that one up before the election?
Complain about this comment
112 Sagamix
They could wear both as both are rubbish in my book.
Complain about this comment
123. meninwhitecoats
Interesting interview from John Major with Andrew Marr - the implication was that both parties are understating the extent of the cutbacks required and that tax rises hand in hand with spending cuts may be inevitable.
=
Unfortunately with Brown you get the feeling that debate is seen as a sign of weakness. "Conviction politics" is one thing, bloodymindedness another.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear - I thought that Miliband was Labour's secret weapon, but he was very weak when interviewed by Marr, and he's not exactly a Paxman grade interviewer.
His main response was of the "Oh come on" and "you can't believe that can you ?" which when claiming ID cards were never going to be cmpulsory was as credible as telling us we'd get a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
Once you have evidenced that government will tell a bare faced lie to pull a fast one, it's pretty easy to judge that they're at it again. It was the government's stated intention to make benefits, pension and NHS provision (and much else) dependent on having a UK bingo card, so that's a mealy mouthed weasel statement.
The government's credibility no longer exists since Gordon is the last man standing to think public services won't be cut, and he's not so much looking stupid as delusional. I wish Gordon were more credible as I don't look forward to a Tory landslide, but his strategy of trite snappy slogans is doing him more damage than good if he has to backtrack because he's hiding the truth. He loses due to dishonestyand/or incompetence.
For heaven's sake - the Tories are even taking a tougher stance against banks. The government are lying and cvering up the situation, and they have a track record of doing that, and there's no way back from there. It doesn't matter if the Tories are the party of cuts. If Labour are the party of lies, people will at least know what they're getting, and the realisation is dawning that cuts will be the way to go anyway.
The Labour fightback has done them more harm than good. I doubt that a change of leader will do much good, but Gordon is totally busted.
Complain about this comment
Feeling a little guilty. Having requested a debate on pensions and education I have neglected the blog for a couple of days. My wife won't let me - Yes dear the Garden will not tidy its self!
My take on Public pensions is that we cannot continue to give them guaranteed final salary schemes. I agree that those who have worked for a significant time must be offered what is their due. We might as well add the cost to public debt in an effort to put all of the problems on the table now and develop a plan to get our debt back on to a firmer footing. However for those with less service and for new entrants, they should contribute to a money purchase scheme like every one else. In that way future generations will not have to take responsibility for paying for the current workforce in their retirement. Pension planning should be compulsory!
I have some experience of education, having received what I believe to have been an excellent education via the comprehensive system, I am perhaps surprising to many who know me, to the left of centre on this subject. I truly believe that everyone born in the UK is entitled to the best possible education. As such it is logical that more funding should be devoted to areas of economic hardship. Having been the chair of Governors at a comprehensive primary School in a mixed but generally affluent area I have seen the extra resource that can be devoted to the School pretty much free of charge from the parents and grand parents. As such more resource can be put to poorer areas where it is more difficult for this sort of support to be relied upon.
Complain about this comment
? BTW
Could we not be allowed a topic/subject line to be included at the top of this 'comment' box?
To be displayed along with the 'awaiting moderation' line.
Oh! Good morning all.
Complain about this comment
125 TheBlameGame
I agree a very interesting interview with Sir John Major.
Particularly interesting to hear someone telling us as it is in terms of the economy. Surprising what a politician can say when he/she is not up for re election
Complain about this comment
102. Susan-Croft
Susan sorry to tell you this but if the Barnet formula was changed for a needs based formula you wou find Scotland getting even more than it currently does.
It is simly untrue to equally allege that Scotland gets more representation than it is entitled to. If you are unawares Scotland had to suffer the indignaty of loosing many MPs post 1997 dropping from 72 to 59. This does rebalance the powers at Westminster!
Remember that the vast majority of MPs in Westminster (our national parliament, its not just Englands) are English! It is patently untrue to say England gets a raw deal, especially when Scotlad has had to accept the loss of MPs.
Furthermore, I think that the last thing England needs is another layer of politicians- so there is no requirement for an English parliament. All that needs to be done is instal England only votes in Westminster for issues which will only affect English constituencies.
Oh and no, its not more important for me to be Scottish than a Conservative. Its just that up here in Scotland we have different ideological positions than many English Conservatives. Up here we never bought Thatcherism, we were happy with MacMillan and Heath- it was your lot down in the home counties who destroyed my lots ability to get elected in my own part of the UK. The Conservatives need to be more representative to the Scottish political and cultural requirement- not less.
Complain about this comment
#127
"everyone born in the UK is entitled to the best possible education"
No one could possibly disagree with that aspiration. But the nagging question is: What is the meaning of 'best'? Does it mean that all children should be driven along the academic road to GCSEs, A levels, and degrees - with one-to-one tuition if necessary to try to get those without interest or ability up to scratch? Or does it mean having several roads through the years of education to provide good quality education in a range of academic, technical, and practical subjects to suit the varying strengths and interests of different children?
The fundamental problem with comprehensives is that they were introduced as a blind reaction to selection at 11 for grammar schools, with the unsuccessful ones condemned to virtually wasting their time in secondary modern schools. In other words, the single basis of comprehensives was academic education, equal for all.
The system has failed because not all children want, or are suited to, a purely academic education, and the technical and practical options were thrown out. It took decades for the message to sink in, and attempts are at last being made to redress the weaknesses via the Tomlinson diploma system and Brown's boasts about new apprenticeships. And of course there are the 'academies', which presumably still focus on academic education.
Unfortunately, I suspect that this latest hotch-potch will not solve the problems. The academies are basically comprehensives under another name, so they will fail for the same reasons. and the diploma system seems unworkable - or only in a second-rate form - because of its sheer complexity.
The Lib-Dems are making sensible noises about the ridiculous 50% target for university education, albeit on the basis of cost, but they seem to be saying little else on education. And Tory plans are as dubious as Labour's, in many ways.
Oh for a modern RAB!
Complain about this comment
That Peter Mandleson has a considerable talent for urine extraction is beyond doubt. However admirable or superficially entertaining this may be, this unelected, twice-rejected 'retread' is both a symptom and cause of all that ails our country. The abject failure to regulate city excesses - which appears set to continue - has been a betrayal of the people by a totally incompetent political class, playing out-of-date games with each other and a largely compliant, personality obsessed media. The sole justification of government in the final analysis must surely be the protection of its citizens. The enemy within - obscene greed and incompetent financial stewardship - was simply not addressed by politicians too busy milking welfare benefits themselves and playing daft party games. It is the arrogance of unchecked power and a failed system that allows Mandleson to continue to thrive. Unless, and there appears no sign of punishment of scrounger, negligent bankers and politicians, heads roll and prosecutions take place, it seems more likely than not that serious civil unrest will result. The tolerant and the apathetic are angry. The out of touch politicos and their out of date parties' days are surely numbered. Mandelson may be able to extract the urine but it is questionable whether he is capable of managing any great escape from the excrement for which he and others are responsible and from which he and others are indistinguishable. If Peter asked me, I'd tell him "You can't" . . . or something similar!
Complain about this comment
# 122 sagamix
is there (apart from, say, the binmen wearing red or blue rosettes) a distinctive Labour versus Tory approach to rubbish collection?
I don't know if there is a difference between Tory and Labour councils with reagrd to rubbish collection as I haven't seen any figures reported. However, the changes to old system (enshrined in the Public Health Act 1875) were introduced by this Labour Government. Fortnightly rubbish collections were heralded as a way to encourage more recycling. In reality, it is just a money saving exercise - with serious implications for public health, particularly in hot weather.
You say don't see why we should have "Labour" or "Conservative" councils ...
In my view, local Councils or whatever persuasion are usually just as bad as each other. They are all rubbish! Sadly long gone are the days when people who cared about their communities stood for office out of a sense of civic duty. The 'cabinet' system (also introduced by this government under the Local Government Act 2000) effectively allows a rubber stamp for decisions made behind closed doors. The Leader of a council also has effective power to appoint his/her cronies as committee chairs (subject only to the rubber stamp) - and large sums of money are involved. All very cosy!
Then there is also the abuse of snooping powers granted under Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) as mentioned earlier.
Local Councils need to be much better regulated and their powers severely curtailed. Cameron is totally wrong if he thinks they need more powers!
Complain about this comment
deanthetory 130
Dean I know as a Conservative in Scotland, it is necessary to believe in the Union, otherwise you would have no voting base. But I am afraid time has moved on and so must you.
Everyone now realises that the Barnett formula (which was made up on the back of a fag packet, which shows how long ago it was) is not only out of date but very inequitable to the English. Even some of your own MSPs are alluding to this. You seem to think it is perfectly reasonable for your small Country to not only have its own Parliament dealing with all the main issues (except for defence and foreign policy) but also in parallel, play a major part in the UK Parliament. Your much larger English neighbour should have to make do with the UK Parliament in which there is no single representation. We also have a PM whos main interests lay north of the border as this is where his Constituency is and this has been proven to be the case by his actions over policies since he has been in his current position.
You have epitomized the problem in your answer in that no matter what political persuasion you are, Scotland comes first and you have no real interest in being equitable to England. This is the same strategy employed by Brown and his other Scottish colleagues.
You talk of deprived areas of Scotland and believe this entitles you to more money. This is not the case as there are many more deprive areas in England. Perhaps if Salmond had used the money wisely on Glasgow and other areas of need instead of populist measures to keep votes, you would have seen many more improvements for the money spent.
The excuse now is that a new layer of Government is necessary. This is not the case. The Scottish Parliament was built at great expense for the tax payer well over budget (if I recall original cost was supposed to have been between £10MM-£40MM with a final cost of £414MM) which is now yours. The UK Parliament should become Englands and all the Scottish MPs should be employed North of the Border thus reducing significant expense costs as a starting point.
Our Countries now have totally different agendas as proved by recent EU elections. England wants to move further away from Europe, Scotland wants to become integrated. Maybe this could also explain Browns loose policy on immigration as Scotland needs immigration and England in the meantime is becoming more over crowded by the minute.
It seems to me that suddenly after years of putting up with Scottish demands and having to listen to the Scottish complaint about having to be tied to England, the Scottish now seem to be getting cold feet when what they have desired for so long is within their grasp. Or could it be that there is the realisation that without England as the cash cow, Scotland could not survive?
I note also you do not disagree with my post about the polices Brown used in bank bail outs I think this is because you know it is correct.
Complain about this comment
Oh, er, the anti-Scottish ravings of some here are beginning to rival those by posters on Guido's site and elsewhere.
If thats how you feel, we'll leave the discredited, unfair Union and take our (85%+ of) North Sea Oil with us, never mind the Atlantic Fringe which will be split between Scotland, NI and the Republic ... good luck paying off your (population c85%) share of the debt without the prime asset currently stopping the IMF, World Bank and others foreclosing on Brown's "Britain"!
Complain about this comment
# 132
In much the same way, tollingbell, that MP's have been let off the hook and some random individuals have been put up for punishment (no doubt to berewarded later on), bankers and others in the finance industry responsible for the financial explosion have walked away unscathed and even emboldened.
It was little more than a Ponzi scam and the easy way to generate money when the economy isn't providing rich pickings. Of course banks aren't lending. Industry ? - that's a bit dodgey - where's the money in that ? They're waiting for the next adventure into fictional security to come provide an intoxicating fairy tale ride into boom and catastrophe.
If banks are too large and important to be allowed to fail then they should be nationalised, otherwise the taxpayer is funding bank risk taking - the poor giving to the rich. Doesn't Socialism give Labour a clue here ? If we have to fund the risk taking, none of the jokers in banks deserve any bonus whatsoever. You don't reward failure, or that's what you keep getting and our bankers must be among the most incompetent.
The only possible alternative to nationalisation, and this is a no-brainer, is to hive off the casino arms of the banks and to take away the taxpayers' lkitty as support for their idiotic speculation. It's like the Chancellor is spending taxpayers money on abunch of Lotto tickets each month, and the money is all going to fat cat bankers.
UK banks are nothing special in a rather backward country and have fought way above their weight limit for ages, mainly through various dodgey dealings - endowment mortgages, precipice bonds, dodgey investments, LRI and other 'products'. They are at the end of the road and the sows' ears treated as silk purses has finished and unless a new game comes along, banks are not going to be the flagship enterprises everyone praised before. They aren't lending to business because that has real risks involved. They prefer the certainty of the fictional profits produced by fake security in a market they run and churn like a sausage machine. Our banks became colossal based on sitting on a mountain of fake paper. Watching them deflate to a normal size will be a painful exprience for the staff.
Too big a part of banks are not banks at all and shouldn't carry any government guarantee. If banks want to gamble money, let it be the shareholders money. That way they'll behave more responsibly and get called to account when they don't perform.
If I should hear the Tories say they will split up the banks, then I'll know that the Tories are now left of Labour.
Complain about this comment
deanthetory
I would appreciate it very much if you are going to quote me on other blogs you would not tell untruths. I have seen your 72 on 'Bether with Brian' and if your intention was to cause trouble I would find that a very unpleasant trait.
My posts at no time mentioned that you should be more of a Conservative than Scottish or your lot get too much money that is your interpretation of what was said. I do not use language like that I make arguments which you seem singularly incapable of doing.
Complain about this comment
#135 pattymkirkwood
"the anti-Scottish ravings of some here"
I think you are being unkind to our neighbours.
It's not good to live with a democratic deficit. We had that for a long time. Just because the English have just discovered how bad it is, is no reason for any Scot to take any perverse pleasure in it. The only reason for the asymmetric model of devolution to be adopted was to allow the Labour Party to rule England.
While I would prefer our English friends to direct their ire at the proper target - Labour, I understand why they stress the Scots aspect of it.
Complain about this comment
susan @ 134
Or could it be that there is the realisation that without England as the cash cow, Scotland could not survive?
let me demonstrate something to you (about yourself) ...
by the way you pose that question ... and the clear context of the rest of your post, regarding the Barnet formula etc ... you feel the answer is yes, there is such a realisation and, furthermore, you share it - i.e. you think Scotland could not survive without financial support from England
fair deduction? - I think so
so, regardless of whether the assumption of Scotland's lack of stand alone viability is correct, you believe BOTH of the following:
1. Scotland can't survive without English support
and ...
2. England should cease to support Scotland
... do you see the problem?
Complain about this comment
# 135 pattymkirkwood
"the anti-Scottish ravings of some here are beginning to rival those by posters on Guido's site and elsewhere"
I can't speak for others, but I have no anti-Scottish feelings whatsoever. Indeed, I would be very sad to see the break up of the Union. The problem is the unfair treatment of the English as meted out by this Labour government - which just so happens to be dominated by Scottish MPs.
The irony is that Brown and Darling, elected by Scottish voters, can make policies for England whilst having very little say on matters that affect their own constituencies - because those issues are now dealt with at Holyrood.
There can be no doubt that the whole devolution project was intended by Labour to bolster its own position North of the border for party political reasons, Scotland being (at the time) a traditional Labour stronghold. Of course, this plan has backfired spectacularly with the rise of the SNP who now want full independence.
Whatever one thinks about Scottish devolution, it is inescapable that it has been entirely one-sided with the English being given no say in their own future or the Union itself. It has been a unilateral divorce, engineered by a Scottish dominated government for it's own benefit.
I do not blame the Scots for this half-baked outcome. It is the fault of Labour - and a timely reminder why this incompetent party should not be allowed to dabble in anything to do with our constitution.
Scotland, wonderful though it is, only makes up a very small percentage of the population of the UK. There are as many people in London alone as Scotland and Wales put together. The status quo is totally unacceptable.
Complain about this comment
Devolution was a smart idea for Scotland. Why else was it done and why did Scotland go along with it otherwise ?
Labour were the facilitators because they had more to lose to the SNP vote, and at least had to be seen to be amenable to devolution and a better deal for Scotland.
Scotland must be getting a good deal out of it otherwise, unless they are congenitally stupid, they'd throw it back in England's face.
There has never been a better time for England t allow Scotland to go its merry way if it so wishes. Eire and Ulster manage quite well togethr apart and it appears that the Union issue is a card Scotland play too much to their own advantage. Within the EC it is not a terminal issue but will at least settle the matter once and for all.
The oil revenue I feel is neither here nor there, as I recall the days when the price of Brent Crude was quoted on the daily news as if our lives depended on it.
"North Sea oil production peaked in 1999 at around 3.5 million barrels per day, and is now down to half that and falling rapidly. So independence forged on expectations of an oil bonanza would clearly carry risks."
Scotlands deficit is larger than England's and, with declining oil production the argument is more a case of, if we're going to get rid of Scotland, now's the time to do it. There's no point of retaining Scotland out of sentimentality and while we're in the mood for cuts, this one would satisfy both sides, but we can still be friends.
Complain about this comment
sagamix 139
No, that is not my conclusion.
It is this; had Scotland been Independent at the time of the banking crisis and if they had had to manage the bank bail outs independently the same way as the Government, it would have bankrupted the Country.
As I do not believe the bank bailouts were managed correctly (which I have outlined in an earlier post on how some in the banking world think the bank bail outs could have been managed better) Scotland could quite easily have dealt with the situation with a small amount of borrowing. Brown, in my opinion has made a lot of political moves that disadvantage the SNP and gives the impression that it would be impossible for the Scottish to afford independence. This is unbelievable because before Brown was in the Westminster village, he believed fervently in Scottish Independence. How power changes people!
Now my thought is this; and you may not like it, if Scotland could get its public sector under control which is far too high (and Brown is still creating jobs in Scotland in the public sector to keep votes) they could very well make it on their own. If Salmond could be persuaded to stop putting in place popular policies to win votes and put the money into deprived areas such as Glasgow, this would help. However, in its present form I do not believe Scotland could survive without help. Reforms would have to be made and their economy streamlined. There are many small Countries now who stand alone. It would be hard but not impossible.
At the end of the day if the Scottish people vote for Independence there is very little anyone can or should do about it, except, accept and wish them bon voyage.
Of course my interest is England; we have proud Scots and Welsh, we need proud English with their own representation and democracy.
Complain about this comment
I don't mean to offend the Scottish but it's been an irritating threat made to gain economic and political benefit. If Scotland doesn't return Labour or Conservative MP's there's no political reason to maintain the union and even less economic reason, though Scotland may wish to argue the point.
Still, if both sides agree to the split, arguing about who benefits is irrelevant. With issues over having too many MP's and the Scottish Parliament bending UK decision making out of shape, it might make the Welsh Assembly feel more involved, as all anyone hears about is Scotland and their needs.
I'd vote for Scottish independence, but don't count on any promises of being allowed a referendum on the issue. Gordon isn't big on democracy.
Complain about this comment
#140 DistantTraveller and #141 GeronimoJones
"There can be no doubt that the whole devolution project was intended by Labour to bolster its own position North of the border for party political reasons"
Undoubtedly true. What you may not realise is that Scotland has always run it's own affairs. As Central Government took more and more control what was centralised in Whitehall for England & Wales was centralised in the Scottish Secretary of State with us. All that happened in 2000 was that we took back political control of these already "devolved" functions, and the budget for them. In some ways not such a big deal.
Nothing has actually changed for England. Why did you ever want to decide on the format of Scottish education? What it has done, however, is to focus your attention on the fact that Scotland is (and always has been) a separate political identity. You now have to face the reality that England does not equal Britain.
In England the political debate will increasingly move to a constitutional one based on the key issue of "identity" Primarily English? or British? or European? (politicians hate that because they can't really control it!! - democracy becomes real)
Complain about this comment
Re Post No.136 - GeronimoJones
Yes, absolutely. In a sane society, it also might appear remarkable that many of the big-named, very heavily state-supported charities have non-executive and executive directors, past and present, of the banks as trustees ostensibly responsible for the charity's strategy, audit and remuneration policy. Urine extraction is not confined to Mandelson!
Self-evidently these people know nothing about such matters having brought the organisations for which they were supposedly responsible to a state of collapse. I guess I am not greatly surprised but the Charity Commission (seemingly toothless and useless) do nothing, nor do "our" politicians if this absurdity is pointed out to them. These business destroyers surely are not fit and proper people for such a role, albeit some extended (lifetime?) form of community service might be thought appropriate for them?
Complain about this comment
#142 Susan-Croft
"before Brown was in the Westminster village, he believed fervently in Scottish Independence"
Now where did you get that nonsense? Brown is a centralising Labour Brit to his very core! He has never, ever, ever supported independence for Scotland!
Complain about this comment
131 - mike-jay
I agree with much of what you say. I do think that all children should be taught to a basic level of competence in English Maths and Science to a certain age, basically the SATs as they are now but without the formal testing. If we employ the right quality of teacher we can trust them to assess the competence of the pupil.
I think that I also agree that there should be different pathways to suit the child and believe that schools are now pursuing this option at age 14+. The problem being that certain pathways do not have the same kudos as others and as things stand at the moment a child may be branded a failure at a difficult time in their life - not conducive to a learning environment.
By and large I believe that the vast majority of our teachers enter the profession with the best of motives wanting to succeed. However too many are found wanting, unable to engage with their pupils and become disillusioned. Too many of these remain in the profession and are far too difficult to remove from their posts. I would suggest that the teaching profession are rewarded with a significantly higher salary to attract the best applicants (I am aware of a secondary school maths teacher who achieved a D at GCSE)and introduce a tougher competence regime, enforced by the head teacher and monitored by the School inspectorate. All of this to be funded by taking away much of the political control of education and giving it back to educationalists. I am absolutely convinced that we can get a much bigger bang for our buck by better management of the education budget. The same could be said for the health budget
Complain about this comment
The Scots are a great nation, who have contributed an enormous amount to invention and innovation. There have been some truly brilliant Scottish men and women. But they are a separate nation, and although they profess to not wanting independence from the English deep down it is forever in their psyche.
The English are also a great nation, but just lately it is difficult to take undue Scottish influence over our affairs. Because of this I feel it is an unfair union. If Europe is to be a federal state as everything that has happened lately shows is the ambition (I would hate the idea but I think it is inevitable) then I believe it may well be time for the Scots to go their own way - like Ireland, but with the ties being in Europe rather than in a phony UK.
Complain about this comment
The problem is, that to accomodate Scottish aspirations the Government has allowed a strange aberration of democracy to come into existence that appears to have emboldened Scotland to make more demands.
I would judge that it's reaching a stage where the easier solution is to go through with full independence.
If the answer to wanting independence isn't saying goodbye, then what's the problem ?
Complain about this comment
English Democracy
Aptly, from the US Declaration of Independence:
"That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do"
Everyone who reads that through, imagine committing to the opposite! e.g.
That this England is no longer a Free and Independent Nation, that it is Absorbed under the British Crown, and that all political connection is now carried out by the State of Great Britain, its own ought to be totally dissolved; and that as no longer Free and Independent, it shall no longer have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent Nations may of right do.
Proud English?
And English nationalist = extremist? Compared to everybody else, I'd say continuation of this Union, as is England's current position, is far in a way the more extreme. What do you think other sovereign, autonomous countries think?
Complain about this comment
# 144 oldnat
"Nothing has actually changed for England. Why did you ever want to decide on the format of Scottish education?"
I agree England shouldn't be deciding the format of Scottish education - but judging by your earlier comments (138) you appear at least sympathetic to English concerns about unreciprocated Scottish influence on English policy! As you mentioned, there is a clear 'democratic deficit'.
You say "What it has done, however, is to focus your attention on the fact that Scotland is (and always has been) a separate political identity. You now have to face the reality that England does not equal Britain."
Of course it isn't possible for Scotland to be a 'separate political identity' unless it is also true of England. Unfortunately, under Labour's one-sided devolution, Scotland is treated as 'separate', whereas England is just an unimportant part of Britain.
Labour's plans will certainly come back to bite them. If Scotland eventually achieves full separation, it will be much harder for Labour to win a majority at Westminster. We must beware any unseemly rush to 'amend' the voting system.
Complain about this comment
Kudos to Susan. Even if she has some odd ideas (!) at least she is prepared to vote for what she wants.
Most of the rest of you belie majorroadaheadagain's assertion that "The English are also a great nation".
They should be. They could be. But most of what I read on the blogs justifies the Australian description of you as "whinging POMs"!
If you want an Independent England, then organise, vote, campaign for independence for your country! Don't wait for us to do it for you (enough Scots might believe the Labour propaganda that we are too small, weak and poor).
Unless you rebuild your own political nation, you won't be great - just a bunch of emasculated wimps.
PS You don't get to decide whether Scotland becomes independent. That's our choice. You only get to decide whether England becomes independent.
The residents of Jakarta didn't get to vote on whether East Timor became independent!
Complain about this comment
The answer is very simple (very simple!).
English / British
You can't have the latter without subjugating the former, as at present only one has international status - unless England gains autonomous control of its own parliament as a sovereign nation, as it always was for the vast majority of its entire existence.
Then you can have your nationality (English), as ordinarily as other nations do, and "British" as in "Isles", can refer, as it should, to the land mass your country is on, in the same way our neighbours are from "Scandinavia" or "South America".
Our British history remains! (Anyway, we can't get rid of it! ;-)
Other nationalities don't see this dilemma - they are, of course, ordinarily, independent.
Complain about this comment
#151 DistantTraveller
You are confusing "political identity" with "political system".
Because Scotland's institutions are different from yours, and because our identity has always been more Scottish than British, and because our society does operate on a less stratified class system, we vote differently. Clearly you haven't understood what I posted earlier about the extent of Scottish administrative devolution long before the reconvening of the Scottish Parliament.
For example, did you know that there has never been a single UK NHS? Since its creation, there has been a "separate" Scottish NHS.
Complain about this comment
Great Britain / England a "great nation"
No nation can be "great" if it doesn't have a sovereign parliament of its own, surely...Can you be "great" and not in charge of your own affairs? (If you were "great", you would be, wouldn't you??)
"My nation is great, but it needs a politically constructed State to decide on all international matters for it."
"My nation is great, but it needs another politically constructed State to decide on all internal matters for it."
"My nation is great but it needs to another politically constructed State around in order to be so."
Complain about this comment
Correction to my #155
"My nation is great, but it needs another politically constructed State to decide on all international matters for it."
Complain about this comment
old nat @ 152
You don't get to decide whether Scotland becomes independent. That's our choice. You only get to decide whether England becomes independent
well not really, the two are horribly linked - if England decides to become independent, Scotland is forced to go it alone too - and vice versa, of course - we're deciding for each other ... aren't we? ... and therein lies a great deal of the problem - what if we want independence and you don't? - what if we don't and you do? - can of worms, this is - one thing, at least, is becoming apparent to me ... the main driver for English Independence is anti Scots sentiment, in turn driven by resentment over the current perceived to be "unfair" one way devolution, compounded by the fact we have a very unpopular Scottish PM, and an even more unpopular Labour government, propped up by Scottish seats - I don't sense anything more than that ... anything positive about "Englishness" and what it means, for example ... behind it all - if you read Susan's posts (which I can't help doing from time to time) you will see that very clearly - and she's just one of many, the same vibe comes from most English Independence supporters - in other words, if we turned the clock back and got rid of the Scottish Parliament, the desire for English Independence would go away - if we returned a Tory government (heaven forbid) even more so - so, what we're looking at here is an (English) independence movement driven mainly by animosity towards a small neighbouring country - that feels all wrong - that doesn't feel like a movement which is going very far
Complain about this comment
oldnat
If you think my ideas are odd on Independence you should see my ones, on how I would run the economy now. However agreed my point about Brown was not clear and here you may be able to help me out. These articles by Brown where he supported Nationalism combined with socialism were from the time when Brown was a student before the Red Paper on Scotland 1976. I know I have copies somewhere and in between doing some preparation work for tomorrow I have been searching for them in my unpacked boxes of papers and books from moving. I obtained them in Scotland and I am sure they were called 'Why did Brown change his mind.' If you have any information it would help. I know Brown has tried to suppress these.
Complain about this comment
Susan Croft, you are discrediting yourself by suggesting that Scotland cannot support itself. This is patently untrue, and wholly unfair to the Scottish people.
Retract that nonsense right now.
I am proud to be a defendor of this union, but Scotland is more than a "small country" as you seem to illustrate! It is an equal member of this union, and I shall defend Scotlands right to have fair, equal and right representation and finance in our Union.
Complain about this comment
#157 sagamix
Of course, they are linked, but not inextricably. The implications for Wales and N Ireland are very different if it's Scotland or England that votes for independence. My point, however, was directed at those who whinge about the Scots, but do nothing about it themselves.
I don't agree with your analysis, however. For those Scots who committed politically to "Britain", it was a conscious choice. English people appeared to use the terms interchangeably. Your identity was never questioned. Now it is. Scotland and Europe have challenged that from opposite sides.
The anger that we both see is real and it's directed at those who challenge long felt assumptions. Change is often difficult to deal with, and anger is a normal aspect of that process.
Of course, the anger would go if England reverted to its assumed position of superiority! It will go, however, anyway when English politics accepts that the world of the early 20th century really has gone!
Complain about this comment
Sagamix
I dont wish to offend but you paint things in an odd way sometimes, perhaps just to be clever or maybe to be deliberately antagonistic. Has anyone on this board talked about an (English) independence movement driven mainly by animosity towards a small neighbouring country as you have?
Do you think that we have animosity towards Scotland as a country? I for one might have animosity towards a system, or towards individuals who are part of that system but it does not extend in any shape or form to the country. I admire the Scots, who have a passion for Scotland which I envy. They celebrate their country in a way that we English have forgotten how to do. This is a vexed question, as you have so properly described in the rest of your text.
Complain about this comment
sagamix 157
You are incorrect and your post clearly demonstrates that in order to keep the Union together almost anything can be used as an excuse.
I used to believe in the Union, however along with my Scottish friends, I see now it is not fit for purpose. Rightly or wrongly we would all like to decide our own destiny for our respective Countries. We are now individuals of separate Countries wanting different things. Therefore one Country should not impose its style of democracy on another.
We cannot set back the clock, therefore I cannot say what would have happened if Scotland had not gained its own Parliament. It would be being dishonest if I said I did.
However we are were we are and it is very wrong to imply that this problem arises because of anti Scots sentiment that would be extremely vindictive in comment and is not a sentiment I feel at all.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
England, or Britain if you prefer, only has a significance as long as it stands beside the USA as an obedient puppy. When we find difficulty with any military tasks assigned to us you get the impression that the US has the attitude of a frustrated parent. Our failures are due to lack of manpower and logistics and anyone considering we'd be safe in Iraq or Afghanistan alone is not being sensible. It's not a criticism of our armed forces, we just don't have the forces to project abroad any more.
We also find that as a part of the EC we do not have any greater significance, mainly because the will of the EC more closely resembles suet pudding.
Why should England have to worry about whether Scotland can manage economically ? I presume if Scotland votes for independence or England votes for it, then it looks after itself. We have a couple of ex-pat financial experts who'll take care of all your money worries.
Sorry - that was uncalled for.
Complain about this comment
#158 Susan-Croft
(Smile)
Are you referring to the pamphlet he co-authored with the SNP's Christopher Harvie "The Scottish Assembly and why you must vote for it."?
That was pro-devolution not independence.
Complain about this comment
I take it Susan that you stand by your argment that Scotland cannot support itself?
Sad, and deeply insightful. Even your response demonstrates your reluctance to appologise for your anti-unionist and anti-Scottish sentiment.
Complain about this comment
susan @ 142
okay, so your position is that Scotland can make it on their own if they follow Croftist economic policies - fair enough, let's move on and look at the snippet below ...
at the end of the day if the Scottish people vote for Independence there is very little anyone can or should do about it, except accept it and wish them bon voyage
but what if they don't want independence? ... where does that leave you? - want an English Parliament in addition to Westminster? - or do you still want English Independence (i.e. an EP instead of Westminster?) - the first would be absurd (given England has about 90 pc of the population) and the second would be forcing Scotland out of the Union against their will
... there's a problem, isn't there?
Complain about this comment
major @ 161
no, the bloggers who are pro English Independence don't put it the way I do but that's because I'm analysing it from the outside, as it were, based on what I'm reading - I'm not saying, btw, that it's driven by dislike of Scottish people or culture ... there is some of that bad stuff going on (perhaps due in great part to Brown) but I didn't mean to imply it was the main factor
Complain about this comment
I have no idea why that post was moderated, still.
deanthetory 166
Honestly Dean I do not know what you are talking about, all I can suggest is you go back and read my posts with a much clearer head. Anti the Union I am, anti Scottish I am not.
Complain about this comment
Countries declaring independnce.
It is not a requirement that both would be neighbours agree. (Not the case with the former Soviet Union!)
For UN acceptance, and thus for UN countries to recognise any independence declaration, prospective independent nations have to show that they are, and have a history of being, a distinct nation, and so have a right to democracy, if they wish.
And show that their population desires to have their say and cast their vote over their own democratic self determination e.g. show there is desire for a relevant referendum.
The referendum question must be unambiguous. If over 50% of the vote is in favour, independence can be declared.
As a nation, England has this option.
To not recognise such a Declaration is to defy the UN Charter. And the UK recognised Kosovo's in 2008.
Complain about this comment
oldnat 165
No these were pacific articles written by G. Brown in which he mingles the need for Independence with socialism in Scotland. I will try to find them. He was of course a student then.
Complain about this comment
#164 GeronimoJones
Agreed, but the problem is that so many Brits still want to pretend that the UK is a world power!
It was a useful Union in it's day (while it kept out of our domestic affairs), but for the "big things" - like defence (more appropriately aggression), the UK is too "wee" to be of any importance. Not much point in continuing with it then.
Complain about this comment
Scotland in UK
It is untrue to assert Scotland cannot support itself! (as the UK government presented in their Scotland would have been in fiscal deficit for the majority if the years since oil was discovered!!) Other small producer countries must be thinking we would have to spend some in order to achieve that! (They're right of course...thanks UK.)
It is also untrue to suggest that Scotland is an equal partner in the UK! When the Tories get in in Westminster and Scotland's voters did not go with it, there is no equality in that.
Complain about this comment
# 154 oldnat
Because Scotland's institutions are different from yours, and because our identity has always been more Scottish than British, and because our society does operate on a less stratified class system, we vote differently. Clearly you haven't understood what I posted earlier.....
What I find difficult to understand is the view (of some) that Scotland is 'different' from the rest of Great Britain, yet England isn't. Yes, England and Scotland historically have different political and legal systems, but the notion that 'England' and 'Britain' are one and the same, yet Scotland alone is 'different' makes little sense. You say (160) that 'English people appeared to use the terms interchangeably'. I'm not sure this is correct - try telling a someone from Yorkshire that they are the same as someone from Lancashire.
But it's true that many English people are perfectly happy to be also considered British and and not everyone feels the need to subdivide. This clearly irritates some Scots, particularly those who do not wish to remain within the union. Perhaps some Scots interpret the English affinity to 'Britishness' as a display of colonialism or desire to subjugate. Nothing could be further from truth. If anything, in recent times, it is Scottish politics that dominates England as, thanks to Labour, England has no voice! This isn't to 'whinge' about the Scots, but rather complain about the constitutional mess created by Labour.
Yes, I hear the Scottish NHS is very good! It may have something to do with the fact that it receives pro-rata higher funding per head of population than the NHS in England!
Complain about this comment
old nat @ 160
I think my point is that, because England is easily the largest constituent of the Union, it's independence can only come about by default, by the smaller entities (Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales) deciding to leave - the other way ... a positive English vote for a separate England ... doesn't work because you can't force the others to go it alone if they don't want to - don't hit me for this (and maybe not a perfect analogy) but it's kind of like a child leaving home when they turn, say, 21 - it's fine for the child to decide to move out, but it's not so great if the parents just kick them out on the street
Complain about this comment
distant @ 174
the sense of a distinct identity is far more intense for a minority grouping ... given England makes up almost the whole of Great Britain, the difference between being "English" and "British" is much less pronounced than it is with the Welsh/Scottish/Irish ... that seems perfectly natural to me
Complain about this comment
# 176 sagamix
"the sense of a distinct identity is far more intense for a minority grouping ... given England makes up almost the whole of Great Britain
You make a fair point. If we only consider numbers, English 'Brits' make up the vast majority. (As pointed out earlier, even the population of London is greater than that of Scotland). But in a way, the comparative smallness of the Scottish population makes it all the more perverse that only Scottish voters should have any say in England's future, in or out of the Union.
However, as you point out (175) for England to vote on breaking up the union would feel like booting Scotland out against their will, whereas Scotland voting on the same issue would be giving them 'a free choice'. But with the greatest respect, this is an unequal partnership with the majority being told they have no right to have any say.
I suspect, if asked, most English people would not want to end the Union. However, the reason some are now 'whinging' (as oldnat puts it @160) is because people are fed up with Labour, which has shown great favoritism to Scotland while treating England with utter contempt. Personally, I just blame Labour, not Scotland!
Complain about this comment
It's so simple. England is the bigger nation. Its capital is the capital of the UK. The UK parliament is in its capital. That's why it is easy to interchange English and British. Why English has been virtually lost to British.
Complain about this comment
175 sagamix
Of course I won't hit you! Good parents don't hit their children! But you are a big boy now, and it's sad to see men in their 20's still clinging onto their parents because they're afraid to go out into the real world. We may have to evict you for your own good.
I could rage that you are sadly patronising, but I suspect that you know that already, and feel somewhat embarrassed by it.
Complain about this comment
#16 T A Griffin (TAG)
am fed up with being ruled by Scottish born leaders, Blair and Brown. One has led to the moral bankrupcy of the UK, the other the financial
But these men are "Brits". It's British, not Scottish they wish to define themselves as - good riddance.
Complain about this comment
#176 sagamix
The Irish are not (in either the North or the South) part of Great Britain. If you can't even use the correct terms for your country .......
Complain about this comment
#174 DistantTraveller
I know this is all very new to you, but please try to concentrate!
"try telling someone from Yorkshire that they are the same as someone from Lancashire. " Why would anyone do that? Or who would try telling a Shetlander that they are the same as a Borderer? What has that got to do with the fact that many people use the terms "English" and "British" interchangeably.
"What I find difficult to understand is the view (of some) that Scotland is 'different' from the rest of Great Britain, yet England isn't."
I'm not surprised that you find that difficult to understand since it is clearly nonsense. It is, however, your nonsense.
"If anything, in recent times, it is Scottish politics that dominates England as, thanks to Labour, England has no voice! This isn't to 'whinge' about the Scots, but rather complain about the constitutional mess created by Labour."
I completely agree. What you have, we had for years. It's not nice is it? Why on earth didn't you realise that before you became the victim?
Complain about this comment
#22 DistantTraveller
A majority of Scots recently blamed Labour too.
It's perfectly simple distant:
We don't have control over our wealth, our arms, our international representation, to name but a few things normal countries take for granted.
We gain nothing from having this lesser status, being represented by another (UK) parliament. As an oil rich, strategically placed independent European country, do you think other countries would ignore Scotland? We are not acknowledged now.
Being in Britain is a barrier to Scotland interacting, in whatever way it may choose, with the rest of Europe. If it is a choice between two Unions, and Scotland need not choose either, there is absolutely no point in being a mute part of Britain, in whichever scenario.
Complain about this comment
#177 DistantTraveller
Oh dear. You still don't get it. Regardless of whether Scotland gets "favoured" treatment or not, the same formula for financial distribution to the devolved administrations of the UK applied all through the years of Tory Government as well.
During those years as well, Scotland spent a higher per capita share on the NHS than England & Wales did. And as now, we spent less on policing. Why do you want exactly the same spending priorities in each part of the UK? Thatcher didn't.
As I have already pointed out the particular form of asymmetric devolution that Labour introduced was designed to allow the British Labour Party to rule England. Frankly if you guys couldn't be bothered to look at the obvious implications, then you were very myopic.
Complain about this comment
# 66 majorroadaheadagain
Incidentally, under my proposal if only one third of the people of Scotland wanted devolution but two thirds of the people of the United Kingdom wanted the Scots to be fully devolved where that would leave us?
Cloudcuckooland ;-)
Complain about this comment
Aye wright makes an important observation, in that Scottish political culture is still confined by the more dominant English political culture in the UK.
I personally agree with her that Scotland does not get political representation which reflects a true union of equals- the drop in the number of Scottish MPs in Westminster from 72 (despite the Act of Unions guarantee) is a sign that in the UK parliament Scottish constituency representation is being reduced, pushed to a political margin entirely against the spirit at least of the 1707 act of union.
Where I depart from Aye is in the solution to this clear disparaging problem. She adovcates (entirely fairly) that her solution is independence for England and Scotland. In effect solve the inequality currently being felt by the union through disolving it, replacing it presumably with a kind of trade agreement-come commonwealth relationship perhaps.
I would prefer to see a system of fiscal federalism for Scotland; this would resolve the problems generated by (mistaken) feeling that Scotland doesnt pay its own way. Fiscal federalism solves this. But this ought to be coupled with further devolution to Holyrood, more than such fiscal federal powers. Then a redrawing of Scottish representations in Westminster to a level guaranteed by the Act of Union- 72 MPs.
But naturally to protect the rights of English control over English affairs the proper final course ought to be English votes for English issues only in the UK parliament. This upholds the rights of England to control her own domestic affairs within the new UK.
This would turn the United Kingdom for all intents and purposes into 'The United Kingdom of England-Scotland'.
Complain about this comment
# 67 sagamix
"devolving" power to smaller units (e.g. local councils, tiny little so called countries like Wales/Scotland)
Scotland has been a nation (check with the UN) for over 800 years. For approximately 60 of those, since 1707, has Britishness and Britain held any significance to the wider population. (During the Empire Scots toiled for Scotland, using Scottish lawyers to ensure they sent wealth back to regenerate Scottish towns and cities.) The advent of the mass media delivered Britishness into Scottish homes only from around WWII on.
We have been therefore, and operated as, Scottish for approx 92.5% of our total existence. Retaking our place in the world, sovereign, and independent, like other countries all over see as the norm, is merely a common sense, obvious acknowledgement of that.
Complain about this comment
'The United Kingdom of England-Scotland'.
If the constituent countries were free to negotiate such international treaties, but they aren't.
What point in being in the three legged race when all other countries are running unhindered?
Complain about this comment
# 182 oldnat
Me: "What I find difficult to understand is the view (of some) that Scotland is 'different' from the rest of Great Britain, yet England isn't."
You: "I'm not surprised that you find that difficult to understand since it is clearly nonsense. It is, however, your nonsense."
Well, perhaps I've misunderstood you. I thought you were making a point (160) about people South of the border using the words 'English' and 'British' interchangeably, (ie not seeing any difference), whereas the Scots see themselves as different, or at least different in a different sort of way. Yes, I agree that is nonsense.
We are all different, but for now we are also all British. This could change of course. Time will tell!
My analogy with Yorkshire and Lancashire was trying to make a point that if within England there are strong regional identities, it seems unlikely that people would not understand the difference between being English and being British. All English people are British, but not all British are English.
You say: "Why on earth didn't you realise that before you became the victim?"
Believe me, I did!
I am trying to concentrate as you suggest... but not sure why you assume this is all new to me!
Complain about this comment
#139 sagamix
Scotland could not survive without financial support from England. Fair deduction? - I think so
Hilarious! (And Britain is still a powerful colonial power ;-)
In the last 60 years a great many countries have embraced independence, almost all smaller and less wealthy than Scotland. None have decided to return.
Complain about this comment
#183 aye_write
"We don't have control over our wealth, our arms, our international representation, to name but a few things normal countries take for granted."
That's true for the English too! Brown signed the Lisbon Constitutional Treaty without a referendum because he knew he would lose. But I don't see this as a Scottish conspiracy. It is Labour duplicity. We also don't have control over our wealth. Brown has blown it all.
You say "We gain nothing from having this lesser status, being represented by another (UK) parliament."
But for now, the parliament in Westminster represents all of the Union which is why Scottish MPs are elected to sit there. In the past, Scotland has actually had more MPs per head of population than the rest of Britain, so hard to see this as a lesser status. It is ironic that Scottish MPs have considerable influence in matters affecting England, but have very little say in affairs that affect their own constituencies as those matters have been devolved to Holyrood.
"do you think other countries would ignore Scotland?" Er... yes! Britain has very little influence in the EU, so it's hard to see that Scotland on its own would do any better.
You say "Being in Britain is a barrier to Scotland interacting". I certainly don't want to diminish the importance of Scotland, but if you think it's bad now, as a tiny independent country in Europe, how much influence do you think you would have then?
"there is absolutely no point in being a mute part of Britain"
I don't think Scotland is mute.... but obviously I'm sorry you feel that way!
Complain about this comment
# 189 DistantTraveller
If you take Britishness out of the equation, it becomes much easier. You get Scottish, English, Welsh...slotting in alongside, French, Dutch, Irish, German, Swedish...
Britain is an artificial political construct (which we've now no need for) with no real identity of its own just what it stole from "English" - hence the ambiguity.
Britain (The British Isles) is a land mass.
Complain about this comment
If, as is likely, that most Scots vote SNP at the next election, then they will have little voice in the London version of Parliament, so I put that forward as a good reason for independence.
The grating truth is that this may be a big isue for Scotland, but I'm afraid it's never likely to generate much fervour either way in that little known entity - England.
Gordon might as well break the union before he leaves office - he's broken everything else he's touched, and with wondrous irony we can blame it all on a Scotsman.
I have the slight feeling that Scotland is hoping we shrivel in horror over the threat, but it doesn't have quite the same resonance as in bygone days now we aren't so concerned about a French invasion.
Once Gordon is gone, Scotland will have less impact on Parliament and they'll have to make up their mind, though it seems they appear to prefer standing at the door shouting "We're going, we really might do it this time, we're not joking".
Once independence is accepted as achievable, it's a dead issue unless Scotland wants it.
Complain about this comment
#184 oldnat
"Regardless of whether Scotland gets "favoured" treatment or not, the same formula for financial distribution to the devolved administrations of the UK applied all through the years of Tory Government as well"
The favoured treatment to which I was referring (177) wasn't so much about the funding, but the autonomy granted to Scotland but denied to England.
As you know, I don't want to see the break up of the Union, but what we have now is the worst of both worlds. Scotland has a large degree of autonomy from England, but not the other way round!
You say: "As I have already pointed out the particular form of asymmetric devolution that Labour introduced was designed to allow the British Labour Party to rule England."
Yes, agreed, but their dastardly plan would only work if Scotland remained 'Labour'. No doubt Labour thought that Scotland would show its gratitude by remaining faithful. But that was not to be. With the rise of SNP, Labour's ambitions have been foiled. If Scotland does eventually go the whole way, it would be very hard for Labour to win an outright majority in the remaining constituencies of England and Wales alone.
Ah well, every cloud has a silver lining....
Complain about this comment
#191 DistantTraveller
Brown certainly has! (blown it all)
No, England has no democracy too ;-)
But when England votes in the Tories, and Scotland doesn't, tell me about the Scots not being mute then.
It is a relationship between two nations, not about the share of the vote throughout them both.
It has nothing to do with representation per head of population. England has nine times more voters.
It's basic arithmetic.
If all of Scotland wishes to ditch trident, Cameron says he will not heed this. In non-devolved matters (the very important ones!), Scotland as a voting nation has no influence, being a nation so counts for nothing.
How can that be squared to enable any pride?
I doubt if the tables were reversed you would have nothing to say.
Complain about this comment
#192 aye_write
"Britain is an artificial political construct (which we've now no need for) with no real identity of its own"
But arguably any political contract is artificial: Scotland, Wales, England, Europe, United Nations etc.
An artificial political construct can still provide a useful purpose. The question of identity isn't really a test of the validity or usefulness of the union. Is there such a thing as a thing as a European Identity? I doubt it.
But I agree there is ambiguity. Does that matter?
Complain about this comment
#191 DistantTraveller
Britain has very little influence in the EU
So there's zero point in clinging on to it.
but if you think it's bad now, as a tiny independent country in Europe, how much influence do you think you would have then?
A normal amount, compared to none.
Scotland would have more MEPs, in line with it being recognised as a nation, not merely region. Did you know Scotland has the same no. as the Leeds area? (6) And The Netherlands has 27, Denmark 14 etc.
We would also get a Commissioner, who would to represent us. Unlike now where Scotland has to listen at the door.
Independence isn't anything extraordinary - Scotland is not looking to rule the world. Only retake what other countries (we are a country, we should have the same status as one, as Britain, not less) take for granted.
Are you worried about England having less influence??
Should all small countries then enter into political union with their bigger neighbours? And which of the different sized partners would benefit if they did?
Complain about this comment
# 195 aye_write
"If all of Scotland wishes to ditch trident, Cameron says he will not heed this. In non-devolved matters (the very important ones!), Scotland as a voting nation has no influence, being a nation so counts for nothing."
I think Scotland does have influence - and under Labour quite a lot. You suggest that Scotland will have less influence under a Tory Government. It's possible, but who knows? If Scotland votes for a few Tory MPs and there is a Tory victory, Scottish influence would increase. But in a sense it's the same reality for everyone. When a party you don't support wins an election, inevitably the losing side feels a loss of influence.
It's important to have pride as you say, but this doesn't mean that people of one particular view have it all their own way all of the time.
For what it's worth, I also think we should ditch trident. Quite apart from the substantial moral reasons (including setting a good example), it's a 'luxury' we can no longer afford.
In terms of elections, the tables are often reversed. You win some, you lose some. But I don't see the Union with Scotland as the problem.
Complain about this comment
# 195
... but aye_write, that's why the voters of Ashby de la Zouch don't run England.
That's like saying we only win soccer matches because we score more goals. No wonder we never win anything nowadays, they keep changing the rules when we win. If we had a smarter Prime Minister he might catch on to this.
If you can explain to Gordon what a referendum is, and try to avoid him doing an 'Iran' on you, then you can get the one Scotsman one vote in Scotland you want, rather than the one Scotsman three votes you appear to be angling for in Britain.
Rewriting democracy is going a bit far. Your argument appears to expose that independence is not on your mind, just Scottish domination.
Complain about this comment
#198 DistantTraveller
In terms of elections, the tables are often reversed. You win some, you lose some. But I don't see the Union with Scotland as the problem.
In elections, you, as an English voter (I assume?), are in the vast majority. So no problem. The Union is comfortable for you.
Complain about this comment
#196 DistantTraveller
But I agree there is ambiguity. Does that matter?
Yes, it matters. It is the point :-)
It is about the status of these nations with these Unions.
In the EU, there are sovereign states sharing some aspects of their sovereignty. In the UK, the "superstate" retains all sovereignty and hands some of it back to some of the constituent nations.
Scotland must communicate internationally through the mouthpiece of the UK, not its own.
The nature of the imbalance in the UK parliament means Scotland as a voting nation being in the significant minority. So it is inevitably the will of the majority in parliament whose views are carried, and not Scotland's.
Whereas the EU nations have a direct voice.
The UK parliament is an unnecessary layer in Scotland's international interfacing, denying as it does, Scotland the capacity to be recognised as a nation, like all the other nations in the EU.
Complain about this comment
#197 aye_write
Me: "but if you think it's bad now, as a tiny independent country in Europe, how much influence do you think you would have then?"
You: "A normal amount, compared to none"
If Scotland goes its own way, only time will tell. But I suspect part of the reason you feel you feel you have 'no influence' is because you do not agree with the people who apparently represent you and feel disenfranchised. Welcome to the club!
"Are you worried about England having less influence??'
As we have virtually no influence now, it's hard to see how we could have less!
"Should all small countries then enter into political union with their bigger neighbours? And which of the different sized partners would benefit if they did?'
Not necessarily, but to some extent this is what happens already. The European Parliament is little better than the Eurovision Song Contest.
Complain about this comment
#199. GeronimoJones
Independence is just a country "dominating" or running itself. It's what the majority of counties are doing. They are not ashamed or having to justify themselves. Should Scotland?
Unlike Gordon Brown, I could leave the state of Britain to become what it has always been, neighbouring nations. It's part of our history but quite a silly way for countries to operate in the modern world - it's a system that hasn't been copied much!
By contrast, groups of countries ruled as one always fail, sooner or later.
"Britan/British Isles" should have the same significance politically as "Scandanavia" or "Iberia".
Complain about this comment
# 200 aye_write
"In elections, you, as an English voter (I assume?), are in the vast majority"
Depends how you look at it. I didn't vote for Labour - but Labour is what we got. It's easy to blame the system, but the truth is, we can't always have what we we want. I am comfortable with that - although sometimes disappointed!
I don't know how the Scots would vote if a referendum on full independence were called, but we will live with it if and when that happens!
# 201
"Scotland must communicate internationally through the mouthpiece of the UK, not its own."
I do understand the point you are making, but I strongly suspect Scotland's voice on its own would be even less effective.
"The nature of the imbalance in the UK parliament means Scotland as a voting nation being in the significant minority. So it is inevitably the will of the majority in parliament whose views are carried, and not Scotland's."
But the nature of democracy is that the majority has the most influence. Despite its smaller size (in terms of population) Scotland hasn't done too badly really. You are already running Britain - what more do you want?!
(Thanks for the chat. Signing off for now. Good night!)
Complain about this comment
#202 DistantTraveller
I suspect part of the reason you feel you feel you have 'no influence' is because you do not agree with the people who apparently represent you and feel disenfranchised. Welcome to the club!
Actually no! I'd love to have the chance to complain that my nation's sovereign parliament is run by "the other side". Scots aren't represented via such an election. I can't even vote in one never mind be upset by the result, until Scotland is independent and can hold ordinary elections like everybody else.
As we have virtually no influence now, it's hard to see how we could have less!
You'd actually have more: The EU would not simply dock 6 from the UKs 29. The size of the rump UKs population would prevent that. And so there would be a voting bonus when the British presence was disaggregated. It would benefit all countries because almost all of the time they would vote together on matters of common interest.
Not necessarily, but to some extent this is what happens already.
Which two nations have dissolved their sovereign parliaments to speak as just one? The EU might not be fair, but can you see any of its members (especially given your sentiments re Eurovision are widely held I believe ;-) being in favour of agreeing to do that? No!
Independence doesn't suggest naivety, but an accommodation of reality.
Complain about this comment
#204 DistantTraveller
It's not about doing too badly - that's not good enough. Other nations don't settle for that!! ;-)
It's about being recognised and functioning as a nation, not a corner, no matter how "well" represented, of Britain, because Scotland is a nation. Other nations understand this! (They are independent.)
Scotland's voice, as a sovereign nation, cannot possibly be reduced as a result of being reinstated as one!
You're welcome.
There is a general view supported by the media that Scotland would be worse off independent, is really in an advantageous position as it is etc. etc. But it's really not credible when contrasted with the normal situation of other nations who are independent - they wouldn't swap ;-)
Complain about this comment
#198 DistantTraveller
I think Scotland does have influence - and under Labour quite a lot.
It's certainly not Scottish influence. Those Scottish Labour MPs I can assure you don't see Scotland as their priority. It's Britain they serve, Britain first, not Scotland. Scotland's not important as it doesn't afford them the same power, they think. It's "North Britain". It's all about their egos.
Lourd Foulkes was even overheard describing Scottish Labour voters as an "underclass". So I'm with you on your disgust with Labour!
Complain about this comment
write and nat
common theme of you two is "it's easy" and indeed it is ... providing Scotland votes for full independence - if you don't, it remains a big problem because the other way (an English vote for same) is just not going to happen - for the reasons I've said, England is so the dominant part of the Union that there is no sense, in most people, of a meaningful distinction between English and British - there's a fair amount of English Nationalism on this particular blog but, for the country as a whole, it remains a minority sport and it's hard to see that changing
Complain about this comment
Run for cover it is the Scottish Question again!
It is all about human tribalism and slicing land into ever smaller portions. We talk about the French, Dutch, Chinese etc. but they have the same issues with smaller reqional identities. The English, well they are not exactly united. And the Scots have a long history of inter-fighting.
So where is the line to be drawn? Well I think that the whole of the UK should have an opinion on this and not just Scotland or Wales or England or Northern Ireland. But whatever the solution it will not please everyone.
Complain about this comment
aye-write you answered my question at 66 with the answer "cloudcuckooland". I agree that is where I think we are now. You obviously understand much more about this than I do (as someone who always answers British English in any reply on passports and the like). If independence rather than devolution is so important to the Scots why is it that a large majority of Scots answer in the negative to any opinion poll on independence? Are they asking the wrong question? Or the wrong people?
Complain about this comment
Good Morning Andrew,
I don't think that some people understand the terrible state that we are in. I will vote for a party that says we will reduce wages in the public sector, that there will be no increases to pensions for five years, that taxes must rise, that interest rates will be allowed to rise, that there will not be any increase to the benefits paid to the unemployed, and the low paid. There must be stricter limits on the tax credit system. We must reduce our payments to overseas aid, it is not going to bring water and electricity to poorer countries, it is being used for security and armaments, and the employment of mercenaries.
We must withdraw immediately from Afghanistan, and stop thinking that we are somehow superior to other people, we must restrict emigration, and no benefits should be paid to anybody who leaves the country to live abroad and expect young people to pay taxes to keep them in a lifestyle which they could not afford 'at home'. We must resign our position from the United Nations, there must be just one representative from Europe, and there must be an elected president of Europe, probably Tony Blair. The United Kingdom should be represented in Europe by England, Scotland, Wales and there must be a united Ireland.
Complain about this comment
208 sagamix
Now you might have been friendly and called us by our first names "aye! and "old" would have been nicer. Calling people by their surnames is soooo English! ;-)
Actually I agree with you. England isn't going to become independent through its own actions. It doesn't need to. However, it appears that many of your compatriots have very poor arithmetic. If Scotland had not been in the UK Union in 2005, you would still have a Labour Government with a significant majority.
This constant whingeing posturing that we regularly read on the blogs about Scotland dominating English politics is, I'm afraid, based on fallacious reasoning (and I do not use that word to indicate that their thinking is rational).
What is of more interest in this English backlash, is that it has made it quite impossible for an MP from a constituency outwith England not only ever again to hold office in an English Ministry (inappropriate anyway) but also any of the major offices of the UK State.
Consequently, no ambitious politician from Scotland has any reason to seek election to the UK Parliament. The focus of politics here, therefore, will inevitably become a process by which all parties will seek to transfer more and more powers to Scotland. Interesting times ahead!
Complain about this comment
#210 majorroadaheadagain
"If independence rather than devolution is so important to the Scots"
Odd to imagine that everyone here should have the same opinion!
There are always people who fear change - that happened pre-devolution too, but only a small group of Scots would now wish to return the political powers of the Scottish Parliament to UK control!
Complain about this comment
209. Dorset_wurzel
Correct. It is all about basing states on different ethnocultures, the Scots get an independent country, so do England, Cronwall, Basque, Catalan, Brittany..etc. Where does the process end?
The whole point of united kingdoms such as Spain, UK has been that in practical terms you can get more accomplished through combining a common effort. I for one doubt whether we in the UK would have enjoyed the welfare state, our NHS specifically if no union had been present. Such an expensive humanitarian structure requires a combination of Scottish and English effort.
The problem is the union is a practical structure aimed at increasing resources across this small island, reducing scarcity in the economy through a combining and integration of mutual economic competences.
Independence and its standard barers; many- but not all- seem to live in an altogether different world of romance. Of Wallace and the Jacobites.
Complain about this comment
sagamix 208
Sorry I could not answer last night I had to go to bed. However yes English Nationalisim is in its infancy, but as the SNP will tell you a good idea often spreads very quickly. Although they did not intend it as such the Labour Party most probably did accelerated any break up of the Union. Labour thought that they were going to produce a voting base for ever for themselves when they gave Scotland its own Parliament. Browns continual meddling in Scotlands affairs have not helped the English or the Scottish.
I personally would like to see Nicola Sturgeon as leader of the SNP as I think she is a very good politician and would lead a very positive Party. I believe Salmond has far too much history.
I understand your worries about any form of nationalism I had them too, but I have come to the conclusion after much thought and reading that our system at present does not work and no one is happy. The Union has been dead for some time its just that the English did not notice. I am afraid as a Country we are a bit apathetic. If you lived in Scotland you would see that its traditions and its culture all give you the feeling of being in a separate Country. British I am afraid only exists in the minds of the English. There are more and more English people who are coming round to this point of view that we need our own representation in the Union.
I want you to know that I am not fanatical about this subject as with all others I have, I hope, a measured approach. If the Scottish people decide to vote against Independence then so be it, we must find a way within the Union to make this work for us all. I do believe this must include some form of Parliament for the English only though.
The real problem may come however,if Brown is again elected as Prime Minister and this could still happen in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
#209 Dorset_wurzel
"Run for cover it is the Scottish Question again!"
No actually this is the "English" question. The other side of the coin.
As to deciding. Are you one of those who would have wanted the people of Sumatra and Java to determine whether East Timor became independent or not?
Complain about this comment
Dorset_Wurzel You say that the whole of the UK should have an opinion. How would you achieve that? By referendum?. What would the question be? Do you want England to have independence? The same question for the other three cpountries in the UK. Would we risk something as important as the Union on how miffed I might be about what I see as inequalities as at present? Or on North Sea Oil? The problem wont go away, because if Gordon Brown is replaced by an equally obnoxious (to some) Englishman then the others will be similarly miffed. I think we should wait. ASfter all, the team that went to South Africa was calledthe "British and Irish Lions". Within one or two generations those in Northern Ireland who favour joining with what they see as their Southern brothers will be in the majority. And then there were three...
Complain about this comment
213 Oldnat You conveniently didnt finish my sentence which had you done would have put a totally different construct on my meaning
I said "If independence rather than devolution is so important to the Scots why is it that a large majority of Scots answer in the negative to any opinion poll on independence? Are they asking the wrong question? Or the wrong people".
Complain about this comment
#210 majorroadaheadagain
Good Morning. It is interesting the different polling results you get when you ask different possible referendum questions. For example the SNP's "The Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state, yes or no?" recently got a 42% yes response. 40% is a typical result. Other questions can get a lot less - independence can be worded in so many negative ways ;-)
The media - we don't have a Scottish media! - is in favour of the Union of course :-)
(Interestingly, the area of Scotland that recently polled quite low for support for "devolution max" - I think it was, an enhancement in the Scottish government's powers - was an area where the Daily Record retains readership.)
But approximately 20% of Scottish voters remain undecided, so if only 9% of voters are convinced in favour, independence is carried. We have a whole campaign to run yet.
Short of there being an invasion, it is always the much harder job to convince people to vote FOR change. Even if I promised the streets of Scotland would be paved with gold - people naturally seek reassurance. English voters are reportedly wanting to vote for a change, to Tory, but it is because they are sick fed up with Labour! - not because they "desire" the Tories.
So it is typically by little steps that you arrive. Calman advises some tax raising powers be devolved. Scots are reportedly in favour. When that happens this will ask for them the question, why not have full tax raising powers? (seems silly to stop at just some?). Then, why not full fiscal autonomy? It is always the status quo that has to be unsatisfactory, and it is.
When historians look back in future from the perspective of Scotland as an independent country, it will seem odd that Scots ever hesitated! But that is always the way.
Complain about this comment
217
My issue is that Scotland and Wales were asked whether they wanted devolved powers but England did not have a voice. How do we know what the majority of people in England want if they have not been asked? In a Union or partnership ALL members of the union should be asked about changes to the structure to the union not just one. I think this has bred resentment (rightly or wrongly). So why not a UK referendum on this? What we have at present is an unleashed Scottish parliament that will try to get more and more power and eventually independence. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we do nothing then Scottish independence is a given.
The perceived inequalities are due to the system not the leaders.
Complain about this comment
#218 majorroadaheadagain
I didn't include the last part of your sentence because I wasn't dealing with that point. However, to deal with the polling question mow -
They may well be asking the wrong people - or more accurately not asking a fully representative sample. Telephone polling only samples those with landlines, and may well be distorting the sample - in which direction, who can tell?
They also frequently ask the wrong question! Obviously, if you ask a loaded question, then you distort the answer! TNS (the old system 3) regularly polls on the critical question of responses to the question that the Scottish Government plans to put to the people, and it does this by face to face interviews.
You can look up the previous polls for yourself, but the most recent one shows Yes - 36% : No - 39% : Don't know - 25%. For comparison the first in the series of polls in August 2007 showed Yes - 35% : No - 50% : Don't know - 15%.
Your assertion that "a large majority of Scots answer in the negative to any opinion poll on independence?" is demonstrably wrong. You will note, however, that the most significant
Complain about this comment
Supporters of a utopian vision that as one "we achieve more" is, in pretending there are benefits (it's just normally that they get to feel bigger - well, the politicians do! ;-), the price of this romance is ignored: loss of national influence and sovereignty. Would other independent countries say that works for them! (I can't see them swapping - national pride??)
These other independent countries must be caught up in the fervour of Wallace and the Jacobites? Or are they just quite normal, and the quashing of national say in the UK is not normal?
Besides Westminster is entirely hypocritical in its opposition to a level economic playing field across Europe, while it loudly supports the exact same, for the British countries.
As part of it, the Scottish economy - unbelievable that a nation can't decide to tax and spend, doesn't know how much it takes in! - has not been allowed the ability to maximise, as it is assumed the English model just suits. It doesn't. (Described in Papers on the Scottish Economy, Margaret and Jim Cuthbert)
Complain about this comment
#138, oldnat I have to disagree ... ask yourself if it would be acceptable to defacto see posters calling someone "too Pakistani", "too Catholic", "too Southern" even; while apparently calling someone "too Scottish" is just fine on this board!
Complain about this comment
##218 majorroadaheadagain
Part II (pressed the submit button too early!) The end should have read
You will note, however, that the most significant change has been the reduction in those opposed to independence, and their move to the don't know camp. As aye has already pointed out - it's all to play for.
Complain about this comment
#220 Dorset_wurzel
"How do we know what the majority of people in England want if they have not been asked?
I refer you to my earlier post, #170, on declaring independence, as to why other nations can't have a say! (Check your UN Charter.) But I agree with your point - where is English democracy.
As per, you will have to claim it - for yourselves. Show there is enough support in the nation of England to demand a referendum on whether you can self govern. We other nations can't do it for you.
It's the word "nation", that provides your answer. Britain isn't one - politically it is a constructed state.
Scotland got a referendum on devolution because Westminster was shamed into it, when its political democracy was shown to be significantly less than those whose was being scrutinised on joining the UN from leaving the former Soviet Union - Westminster did not afford democracy to the UK's constituent nations and this couldn't stand (conflicted with the Charter).
Complain about this comment
#223 pattymkirkwood
Susan denies saying that. I haven't bothered checking as I would always take the word of a lady!
Complain about this comment
#225
There is a subtle difference between an English call for independence and that of Scotland or Wales. Scot/Wales did not have a "functioning" parliament whereas the UK parliament resides in England. This means that for English independence you either had to build another parliament or make the current one England only. This is/was not possible before devolved parliaments and is probably why the clamour for it is less. It has however resulted in a notch-potch democratic system.
Complain about this comment
#227 Dorset_wurzel
Answer - we all return to being independent!
Britain does make an Rs of democracy :-)
Complain about this comment
oldnat 221
I was thinking of the BBC poll published at the end of June. Looking up the figures supplied by ICM it showed that 58% of Scots were in favour of a referendum in independence with only 37% against. However, on the question of in an referendum on Scottih independence 38% said it should become independent whereas 54% said it shouldnt. On a further question of whether Scots backed the option of Scotland becoming independent of the ret of the UK only 28% backed the option of Scotland becoming independent from the rest of the UK while 69% (split into two parts) favoured Scotland remaining as part of the rest of the UK.
I found your figures mainly in SNP literature on the web. Can you throw any light on which is ikely to be more accurate? I can understand why the SNP would want to use stats that served to prove their point and advance their objectives but in the interest of those of us who want to protect the Union it is important that we deal in accurate figures.
Complain about this comment
229. majorroadaheadagain
Here are some poll findings on the question of independence.
YouGov/Sunday Times - 17/08/07 (3)
- independence 23%
-tax raising powers under devolution 39%
-status quo 20%
-No Parliament in Holyrood 9%
That had changed from the previous time this form of multichoice was asked:
YouGov/Scottish Election Study - 23/04/07 (1)
-independence 42%
-tax raising- 23%
-status quov 23%
-no parliament 14%
And the same multichoice again:
YouGov/Sunday Times - 20/04/07 (2)
-independence 26%
-tax raising 37%
-status quo 17%
-no parlaiment 12%
Those multichoice where based on the question wording as follows:
YouGov:(1) The Scottish Parliament should be abolished and all Scottish laws passed by Westminster again/ There should be no change to the present arrangements: Scotland should have a devolved Parliament with limited powers/ The Scottish Parliaments powers should be increased and it should raise more of its own taxes/ Scotland should be independent within the European Union/ Scotland should be independent outside the European Union (2) Thinking of constitutional change which of the following statements comes closest to your opinion: I support Scotland becoming an independent country/ I support the Scottish Parliament being given more powers, short of independence/ I support things remaining as they are/ I support the abolition of the Scottish parliament (3) And imagine now that such a referendum were held tomorrowWhich of the following statements comes closest to your view? Scotland should become an independent country/ The Scottish Parliament should be given more powers, rather than Scotland becoming independent/ Things in Scotland should remain as they are/ The Scottish Parliament should be abolished
You can see how the findings change depending upon the wording used (either 1, 2, or 3).
Complain about this comment
#229 majorroadaheadagain
You'll find the TNS polls at http://www.tns-custom.co.uk/our-sector-focus/scottish-market_polling-results.aspx
As to the BBC poll by ICM, there are problems with telephone polling as I outlined above, and indeed with any snapshot poll as opposed to a series of polls like TNS - opinion never being static.
"On a further question of whether Scots backed the option of Scotland becoming independent of the rest of the UK only 28% backed the option of Scotland becoming independent from the rest of the UK while 69% (split into two parts) favoured Scotland remaining as part of the rest of the UK."
Or the other way round only 22% backed the option of the Scottish Parliament being limited to its current powers while 73% (split into two parts) favoured significant extension of its powers. Of the current reserved powers roughly two thirds wanted decisions on taxation and pensions to be taken at Holyrood, while only a third wanted them to stay reserved to Westminster.
I have never argued that there is a current majority for independence as Scotland's constitutional status. The extent of the distance we have travelled is, however, massive. You may like to have a look at polling from 10 years ago http://www.alba.org.uk/polls/devopoll.html has an article from the Herald on those.
The BBC poll showed that only on defence and foreign affairs was there a significant majority for these powers being reserved to Westminster. A real constitutional debate (which we want, but the Unionists refuse) would also include options like defence - Scotland? UK? Europe?
Changing opinions on Scotland controlling it's own affairs has been unidirectional. It will stop at a point where the Scots are happy with a settlement that the UK (ie England) will accept.
Complain about this comment
Oldnat A vote on Europe could be a catalyst. What would happen if there were a referendum on Europe and the majority of UK citizens favoured either renegotiated terms or withdrawal. The figures would be hugely skewed by the English component. I am not sure what the Scottish (I mean the people rather than the Government) position is on Europe, but say you wanted to stay in? I suspect a vote for independence couched in the terms "do you want to be independent and stay in Europe?" would be much more likely to succeed were it to be true that the majority of Scots were Europhiles?
Complain about this comment
#232 majorroadaheadagain
There is really no way to tell. There is conflicting poll evidence, but Scots are as exposed to the same media as you guys.
I suspect much may hang on the deal that Iceland gets on EU membership - especially with fishing.
Complain about this comment
Well I can't see how you can be recognised as Nation State without the right to bare arms. Perhaps Scotland could get itself twinned with Isreal's so called Palestinian State if they ever get the chance to create it?
Complain about this comment
#234 jer1956
Scotland has a high skin cancer rate. You don't get that unless you "bare arms."
Complain about this comment
#235
Good point. I should have said the Scots should have the right to bear arms and bare legs!
Complain about this comment
#236 jer1956
Good riposte!
Frankly I would have much less concern about remaining in a union with England covering defence/foreign affairs if "defence" for a UK Government was actually that and not intervention and regime change elsewhere.
My first introduction to politics was Suez. It was disappointing to say the least to see the same blundering nearly 50 years later.
Complain about this comment
sc @ 215
I want you to know that I am not fanatical about this subject
that's nice to hear ... and I'm glad you want me to know things! ... but you're an EngDem supporter and their raison d'etre is Independence for England, so err ...
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
View these comments in RSS