Caused a bit of excitement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183

Would we be better off without the Jocks?

On Friday, May 17, 2013 10:12:04 AM UTC+1, harry wrote:
Caused a bit of excitement.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183



Would we be better off without the Jocks?

Possibly, but interestingly we are not being given the option of saying what we think, whereas they are. We are in a union and surely both parties to the union should have a say.

On 17/05/2013 10:12 harry wrote:

Caused a bit of excitement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183

Would we be better off without the Jocks?

Is this a d-i-y question or something more appropriate to uk.politics?

Would an angle grinder or WD40 work?

--
F

On 17/05/2013 10:22, cryptogram wrote:
On Friday, May 17, 2013 10:12:04 AM UTC+1, harry wrote:
Caused a bit of excitement.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183



Would we be better off without the Jocks?

Possibly, but interestingly we are not being given the option of saying what we think, whereas they are. We are in a union and surely both parties to the union should have a say.

From the analyses I've seen, running Scotland as a truly independent
country would be extremely challenging. They probably don't want the
referendum to have too great a chance of succeeding.

Colin Bignell

In article
,
harry wrote:
Caused a bit of excitement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183

Would we be better off without the Jocks?

We? You think this is an England only group? Which part of UK don't you
understand?

BTW where does your racism stop? Is the next village included?

--
*There are two sides to every divorce: Yours and **** head's*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 17/05/2013 11:27 Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article
,
harry wrote:
Caused a bit of excitement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183

Would we be better off without the Jocks?

We? You think this is an England only group? Which part of UK don't you
understand?

Which part of uk.d-i-y does he not understand?

Yet another attempt to start a provocative off-topic thread.

He's turning into the resident troll.

--
F

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
harry wrote:
Caused a bit of excitement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183

Would we be better off without the Jocks?

We? You think this is an England only group? Which part of UK don't you
understand?

BTW where does your racism stop? Is the next village included?

Edinburgh certainly seems to have its fair share judging by yesterday's
events.

On 17/05/2013 11:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
Caused a bit of excitement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183

Would we be better off without the Jocks?

We? You think this is an England only group? Which part of UK don't you
understand?

I wonder if the name of the group will have to change if Scotland does
become independent, or will the remnant of the Kingdom of Ireland that
is still associated with the English Crown be enough still to count as a
United Kingdom?

Colin Bignell

On 17/05/13 10:42, F wrote:
On 17/05/2013 10:12 harry wrote:

Caused a bit of excitement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183

Would we be better off without the Jocks?

Is this a d-i-y question or something more appropriate to uk.politics?

Would an angle grinder or WD40 work?

Indeed. we should all tie up their ballcocks.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 17/05/13 12:05, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
harry wrote:
Caused a bit of excitement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183

Would we be better off without the Jocks?

We? You think this is an England only group? Which part of UK don't you
understand?

BTW where does your racism stop? Is the next village included?

Edinburgh certainly seems to have its fair share judging by
yesterday's events.
OTOH when listening to the video, there was a dearth of scottish
accents. I suspect the radical left bussed in rent-a-bigots for the
occasion.

And if you thought UKIP was a party of the right, think again. The Left
is just as scared...

"UKIPs Caven Vines has just been elected to Rotherham Metropolitan
Borough Council on an impressive 46.5% of the vote, narrowly beating the
Labour Party. Conservatives, BNP, Trade Unionists and the Liberal
Democrats all stood, but each got less than 5% of the vote €“ proving
that in many Northern areas, UKIP is now the only real alternative to
Labour. The result in full:


*Caven Vines €“ UKIP €“ 1143*

Labour - 1039

Conservative - 107

BNP €“ 80

TUSC €“ 60

Lib Dems €“ 28"

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 17/05/2013 12:42, Nightjar wrote:
On 17/05/2013 11:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
Caused a bit of excitement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183

Would we be better off without the Jocks?

We? You think this is an England only group? Which part of UK don't you
understand?

I wonder if the name of the group will have to change if Scotland does
become independent, or will the remnant of the Kingdom of Ireland that
is still associated with the English Crown be enough still to count as a
United Kingdom?

Colin Bignell

Will there be one of these exceedingly rare things these days, a flurry
of new news groups?

I suspect that the "uk" in internet-related things would hang around for
a very long time even if Wales and NI also separated. But .en seems to
be available still...

--
Rod

On 17 May, 12:57, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 17/05/13 12:05, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:









"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
* harry wrote:
Caused a bit of excitement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183

Would we be better off without the Jocks?

We? You think this is an England only group? Which part of UK don't you
understand?

BTW where does your racism stop? Is the next village included?

Edinburgh certainly seems to have its fair share judging by
yesterday's events.

OTOH when listening to the video, there was a dearth of scottish
accents. I suspect the radical left bussed in rent-a-bigots for the
occasion.

And if you thought UKIP was a party of the right, think again. The Left
is just as scared...
snip
that in many Northern areas, UKIP is now the only real alternative to
Labour. *The result in full:

*Caven Vines – UKIP – 1143*

Labour - 1039

Since when, in recent years, has Labour been "the left"?

MBQ

On 17/05/2013 12:42, Nightjar wrote:
I wonder if the name of the group will have to change if Scotland does
become independent, or will the remnant of the Kingdom of Ireland that
is still associated with the English Crown be enough still to count as a
United Kingdom?


DANGER INCOMING LEEKS!

On 17/05/2013 12:57, polygonum wrote:
On 17/05/2013 12:42, Nightjar wrote:
On 17/05/2013 11:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
Caused a bit of excitement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183

Would we be better off without the Jocks?

We? You think this is an England only group? Which part of UK don't you
understand?

I wonder if the name of the group will have to change if Scotland does
become independent, or will the remnant of the Kingdom of Ireland that
is still associated with the English Crown be enough still to count as a
United Kingdom?

Colin Bignell

Will there be one of these exceedingly rare things these days, a flurry
of new news groups?

I suspect that the "uk" in internet-related things would hang around for
a very long time even if Wales and NI also separated. But .en seems to
be available still...


Wales is, of course, a principality, so it wouldn't count towards being
a united kingdom.

Colin Bignell

On 17/05/2013 11:15, Huge wrote:
On 2013-05-17, Nightjar wrote:
On 17/05/2013 10:22, cryptogram wrote:
On Friday, May 17, 2013 10:12:04 AM UTC+1, harry wrote:
Caused a bit of excitement.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183



Would we be better off without the Jocks?

Possibly, but interestingly we are not being given the option of saying what we think, whereas they are. We are in a union and surely both parties to the union should have a say.

From the analyses I've seen, running Scotland as a truly independent
country would be extremely challenging. They probably don't want the
referendum to have too great a chance of succeeding.

I imagine what they really want is "devo max", where the English give them
shed-loads of money and they spend it on whatever they like.

I thought that was the historical basis for the union.

Colin Bignell

On 17/05/2013 11:15, Huge wrote:
On 2013-05-17, Nightjar wrote:
On 17/05/2013 10:22, cryptogram wrote:
On Friday, May 17, 2013 10:12:04 AM UTC+1, harry wrote:
Caused a bit of excitement.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183



Would we be better off without the Jocks?

Possibly, but interestingly we are not being given the option of saying what we think, whereas they are. We are in a union and surely both parties to the union should have a say.

From the analyses I've seen, running Scotland as a truly independent
country would be extremely challenging. They probably don't want the
referendum to have too great a chance of succeeding.

I imagine what they really want is "devo max", where the English give them
shed-loads of money and they spend it on whatever they like.

While maintaining a full presence for Scottish MPs in the English
parliamentary system no doubt...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Friday 17 May 2013 10:42 F wrote in uk.d-i-y:


Would an angle grinder or WD40 work?


What for? Opening a scotsman's wallet? ;-




(Yes it's a joke)

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On Friday 17 May 2013 11:15 Huge wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 2013-05-17, Nightjar wrote:
On 17/05/2013 10:22, cryptogram wrote:
On Friday, May 17, 2013 10:12:04 AM UTC+1, harry wrote:
Caused a bit of excitement.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183



Would we be better off without the Jocks?

Possibly, but interestingly we are not being given the option of saying
what we think, whereas they are. We are in a union and surely both
parties to the union should have a say.

From the analyses I've seen, running Scotland as a truly independent
country would be extremely challenging. They probably don't want the
referendum to have too great a chance of succeeding.

I imagine what they really want is "devo max", where the English give them
shed-loads of money and they spend it on whatever they like.



Last I heard, Defence would still be sorted by UK PLC (that's a big bit of
spending). As would probably a number of other things.

Do Scotland magically aquire North Sea gas/oil fields? Or is that a UK
thing?

I find it very strange - this whole devolution thing. Local governemnt makes
sense in layers - as we have now.

But is this a case of the jocks, paddys and leeks hate the limeys so much -
in which case there is no hope for anyone to ever live in an integrated
society as we've been together with all of the above for centruries.

Or is it a case that they're all ****ed of with being told what to do by
Westminster? In which case, when's Cornwall, Devon and everything north of
the Watford Gap going to devolve?

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On Friday 17 May 2013 12:57 polygonum wrote in uk.d-i-y:


I suspect that the "uk" in internet-related things would hang around for
a very long time even if Wales and NI also separated. But .en seems to
be available still...


..su still lives...

http://www.saabclub.su/

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

In article
,
harry writes
Caused a bit of excitement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183

Would we be better off without the Jocks?

In short, **** off you ****!

Your way-OT, politically motivated posts have no place here and marking
the turds with little OT flags makes them no more acceptable.

There are well respected contributors here who would be offered a great
degree of latitude on OT posts should they choose to make them but they
do not because they respect this group and have better manners than to
ramble on obsessively at our expense.

If you were in any doubt, you are not a member of that trusted group so
how about keeping your socio-political ramblings to yourself?

Not that I expect you to even consider complying, you have no manners
and no respect for others.
--
fred
it's a ba-na-na . . . .

On 17/05/13 13:03, Man at B&Q wrote:
On 17 May, 12:57, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 17/05/13 12:05, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:









"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
harry wrote:
Caused a bit of excitement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183
Would we be better off without the Jocks?
We? You think this is an England only group? Which part of UK don't you
understand?
BTW where does your racism stop? Is the next village included?
Edinburgh certainly seems to have its fair share judging by
yesterday's events.
OTOH when listening to the video, there was a dearth of scottish
accents. I suspect the radical left bussed in rent-a-bigots for the
occasion.

And if you thought UKIP was a party of the right, think again. The Left
is just as scared...
snip
that in many Northern areas, UKIP is now the only real alternative to
Labour. The result in full:

*Caven Vines €“ UKIP €“ 1143*

Labour - 1039
Since when, in recent years, has Labour been "the left"?

well that is of course a valid point.

What do YOU understand by the Left?


MBQ


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 17/05/13 13:32, Nightjar wrote:
On 17/05/2013 11:15, Huge wrote:
On 2013-05-17, Nightjar wrote:
On 17/05/2013 10:22, cryptogram wrote:
On Friday, May 17, 2013 10:12:04 AM UTC+1, harry wrote:
Caused a bit of excitement.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183



Would we be better off without the Jocks?

Possibly, but interestingly we are not being given the option of
saying what we think, whereas they are. We are in a union and
surely both parties to the union should have a say.

From the analyses I've seen, running Scotland as a truly independent
country would be extremely challenging. They probably don't want the
referendum to have too great a chance of succeeding.

I imagine what they really want is "devo max", where the English give
them
shed-loads of money and they spend it on whatever they like.

I thought that was the historical basis for the union.

Indeed. Some say it was the main driving force. They were broke having
spent lots of money on trying to establish a colony somewhere which they
made a pigs ear of. Access to English cash was the reason to join the EU
- sorry UK.


Colin Bignell


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 17/05/2013 14:07, Tim Watts wrote:
On Friday 17 May 2013 11:15 Huge wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 2013-05-17, Nightjar wrote:
On 17/05/2013 10:22, cryptogram wrote:
On Friday, May 17, 2013 10:12:04 AM UTC+1, harry wrote:
Caused a bit of excitement.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183



Would we be better off without the Jocks?

Possibly, but interestingly we are not being given the option of saying
what we think, whereas they are. We are in a union and surely both
parties to the union should have a say.

From the analyses I've seen, running Scotland as a truly independent
country would be extremely challenging. They probably don't want the
referendum to have too great a chance of succeeding.

I imagine what they really want is "devo max", where the English give them
shed-loads of money and they spend it on whatever they like.



Last I heard, Defence would still be sorted by UK PLC (that's a big bit of
spending). As would probably a number of other things.

Do Scotland magically aquire North Sea gas/oil fields? Or is that a UK
thing?

That depends upon whether you listen to Alex Salmond, or stick to the
way the oil income was structured by HM Treasury when it all started.

I find it very strange - this whole devolution thing. Local governemnt makes
sense in layers - as we have now.

But is this a case of the jocks, paddys and leeks hate the limeys so much -
in which case there is no hope for anyone to ever live in an integrated
society as we've been together with all of the above for centruries....

The Scots have never forgiven us for allowing them to put their king on
our throne, or maybe it is for bailing them out when their attempts at
colonisation nearly bankrupted the country.

Colin Bignell

On 17/05/2013 14:00, Tim Watts wrote:
On Friday 17 May 2013 10:42 F wrote in uk.d-i-y:


Would an angle grinder or WD40 work?


What for? Opening a scotsman's wallet? ;-




(Yes it's a joke)

I would have thought that threatening his sporran with an angle grinder
would be enough.

Colin Bignell

On May 17, 1:14*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,









*"Mentalguy2k8" wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
* harry wrote:
Caused a bit of excitement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183

Would we be better off without the Jocks?

We? You think this is an England only group? Which part of UK don't you
understand?

BTW where does your racism stop? Is the next village included?

Edinburgh certainly seems to have its fair share judging by yesterday's
events.

They're fascists, in fact: people using threats, intimidation, and
violence to prevent free speech.


There's people here like that.

On 17/05/2013 14:07, Tim Watts wrote:
Or is it a case that they're all ****ed of with being told what to do by
Westminster? In which case, when's Cornwall, Devon and everything north of
the Watford Gap going to devolve?

https://www.mebyonkernow.org/

Andy

On May 17, 2:09*pm, fred wrote:
In article
,
harry writes

Caused a bit of excitement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183

Would we be better off without the Jocks?

In short, **** off you ****!

Your way-OT, politically motivated posts have no place here and marking
the turds with little OT flags makes them no more acceptable.

There are well respected contributors here who would be offered a great
degree of latitude on OT posts should they choose to make them but they
do not because they respect this group and have better manners than to
ramble on obsessively at our expense.

If you were in any doubt, you are not a member of that trusted group so
how about keeping your socio-political ramblings to yourself?

Not that I expect you to even consider complying, you have no manners
and no respect for others.
Pretty ignorant yourself.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/05/13 13:32, Nightjar wrote:
On 17/05/2013 11:15, Huge wrote:
On 2013-05-17, Nightjar wrote:
On 17/05/2013 10:22, cryptogram wrote:
On Friday, May 17, 2013 10:12:04 AM UTC+1, harry wrote:
Caused a bit of excitement.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183



Would we be better off without the Jocks?

Possibly, but interestingly we are not being given the option of
saying what we think, whereas they are. We are in a union and surely
both parties to the union should have a say.

From the analyses I've seen, running Scotland as a truly independent
country would be extremely challenging. They probably don't want the
referendum to have too great a chance of succeeding.

I imagine what they really want is "devo max", where the English give
them
shed-loads of money and they spend it on whatever they like.

I thought that was the historical basis for the union.

Indeed. Some say it was the main driving force. They were broke having
spent lots of money on trying to establish a colony somewhere which they
made a pigs ear of. Access to English cash was the reason to join the EU -
sorry UK.

I expect most of you will have heard of the Darien project, but it's very
interesting reading for any that haven't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme


Colin Bignell


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members
of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded
with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 17 May, 14:18, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 17/05/13 13:03, Man at B&Q wrote:









On 17 May, 12:57, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 17/05/13 12:05, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
* *harry wrote:
Caused a bit of excitement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183
Would we be better off without the Jocks?
We? You think this is an England only group? Which part of UK don't you
understand?
BTW where does your racism stop? Is the next village included?
Edinburgh certainly seems to have its fair share judging by
yesterday's events.
OTOH when listening to the video, there was a dearth of scottish
accents. I suspect the radical left bussed in rent-a-bigots for the
occasion.

And if you thought UKIP was a party of the right, think again. The Left
is just as scared...
snip
that in many Northern areas, UKIP is now the only real alternative to
Labour. *The result in full:

*Caven Vines – UKIP – 1143*

Labour - 1039
Since when, in recent years, has Labour been "the left"?

well that is of course a valid point.

What do YOU understand by the Left?

Well, it's the opposite to the right, innit.

MBQ

On 17 May 2013 10:15:46 GMT, Huge wrote:

I imagine what they really want is "devo max", where the English give them
shed-loads of money and they spend it on whatever they like.

Scotland with 8.4% of the population pays 9.9% of the UK's tax. It's
more about Scotland keeping more of it's money than handing it over to
the English to spend it on whatever they like.

On 17/05/2013 19:47, mcp wrote:
On 17 May 2013 10:15:46 GMT, Huge wrote:

I imagine what they really want is "devo max", where the English give them
shed-loads of money and they spend it on whatever they like.

Scotland with 8.4% of the population pays 9.9% of the UK's tax. It's
more about Scotland keeping more of it's money than handing it over to
the English to spend it on whatever they like.

Only if you include oil revenue, which HM Treasury has been careful to
ensure will not happen. Scotland also has a higher than average per
capita expenditure, partly due to poor health and partly due to high
unemployment. Without oil, Scotland receives around £16bn more than it
inputs to the UK. Oil revenue would reduce that by around £6bn.

Colin Bignell

On 17/05/2013 11:15, Huge wrote:
On 2013-05-17, Nightjar wrote:
On 17/05/2013 10:22, cryptogram wrote:
On Friday, May 17, 2013 10:12:04 AM UTC+1, harry wrote:
Caused a bit of excitement.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183



Would we be better off without the Jocks?

Possibly, but interestingly we are not being given the option of saying what we think, whereas they are. We are in a union and surely both parties to the union should have a say.

From the analyses I've seen, running Scotland as a truly independent
country would be extremely challenging. They probably don't want the
referendum to have too great a chance of succeeding.

I imagine what they really want is "devo max", where the English give them
shed-loads of money and they spend it on whatever they like.


Are We Not Men? We Are Devo (max?)!

--
Rod

On 17 May 2013 21:48:50 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2013-05-17, mcp wrote:
On 17 May 2013 10:15:46 GMT, Huge wrote:

I imagine what they really want is "devo max", where the English give them
shed-loads of money and they spend it on whatever they like.

Scotland with 8.4% of the population pays 9.9% of the UK's tax.

Cite, please.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Rele...ERScomment6313

On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:55:31 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

On 17/05/2013 19:47, mcp wrote:
On 17 May 2013 10:15:46 GMT, Huge wrote:

I imagine what they really want is "devo max", where the English give them
shed-loads of money and they spend it on whatever they like.

Scotland with 8.4% of the population pays 9.9% of the UK's tax. It's
more about Scotland keeping more of it's money than handing it over to
the English to spend it on whatever they like.

Only if you include oil revenue, which HM Treasury has been careful to
ensure will not happen. Scotland also has a higher than average per
capita expenditure, partly due to poor health and partly due to high
unemployment. Without oil, Scotland receives around £16bn more than it
inputs to the UK. Oil revenue would reduce that by around £6bn.

Scotland receives 9.3 per cent of total UK public sector expenditure
acording to GERS, but that includes large amounts of "UK" spending
that disproportionately benefits London & the south east.

F news@nowhere writes:

On 17/05/2013 10:12 harry wrote:

Caused a bit of excitement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183

Would we be better off without the Jocks?

Is this a d-i-y question or something more appropriate to uk.politics?

Would an angle grinder or WD40 work?

Freeze spray, applied to all politicians, might prevent their lips from
moving :-)




--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

On May 17, 7:47*pm, mcp wrote:
On 17 May 2013 10:15:46 GMT, Huge wrote:

I imagine what they really want is "devo max", where the English give them
shed-loads of money and they spend it on whatever they like.

Scotland with 8.4% of the population pays 9.9% of the UK's tax.

Where did that figure come from?

On May 18, 1:50*am, mcp wrote:
On 17 May 2013 21:48:50 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2013-05-17, mcp wrote:
On 17 May 2013 10:15:46 GMT, Huge wrote:

I imagine what they really want is "devo max", where the English give them
shed-loads of money and they spend it on whatever they like.

Scotland with 8.4% of the population pays 9.9% of the UK's tax.

Cite, please.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Rele...ERScomment6313

Well if true that is something soon to stop happening as North Sea gas
and oil is depleted.

On 18/05/2013 01:59, mcp wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:55:31 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

On 17/05/2013 19:47, mcp wrote:
On 17 May 2013 10:15:46 GMT, Huge wrote:

I imagine what they really want is "devo max", where the English give them
shed-loads of money and they spend it on whatever they like.

Scotland with 8.4% of the population pays 9.9% of the UK's tax. It's
more about Scotland keeping more of it's money than handing it over to
the English to spend it on whatever they like.

Only if you include oil revenue, which HM Treasury has been careful to
ensure will not happen. Scotland also has a higher than average per
capita expenditure, partly due to poor health and partly due to high
unemployment. Without oil, Scotland receives around £16bn more than it
inputs to the UK. Oil revenue would reduce that by around £6bn.

Scotland receives 9.3 per cent of total UK public sector expenditure
acording to GERS, but that includes large amounts of "UK" spending
that disproportionately benefits London & the south east.

Scotland is still being subsidised to the tune of more than £3,000 per
person. Even if Salmond got his claim to geographical oil revenues,
which he won't, it would be more than £2,000 a head. In addition much of
the 'UK' spending is in things like unemployment and healthcare, which,
as I pointed out, Scotland has a disproportionate need for. Huge's
statement is correct.

Colin Bignell

In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
Scotland is still being subsidised to the tune of more than £3,000 per
person. Even if Salmond got his claim to geographical oil revenues,
which he won't, it would be more than £2,000 a head. In addition much of
the 'UK' spending is in things like unemployment and healthcare, which,
as I pointed out, Scotland has a disproportionate need for. Huge's
statement is correct.

You can make up any figures you like. To get an accurate picture you'd
also have to take into account all state controlled spending and see just
where it goes. Just as an example, the recent spending on the Olympics.
How much of that went directly to Scotland? Employed Scottish workers or
companies? And things like the proposed HS2. Again, billions being spent.
Paid for by all in the country, but of no benefit to the Scots - or Welsh
or Irish.

In other words, there's a great deal more to it than simple taxation and
direct government spending.

--
*WHY IS THERE AN EXPIRATION DATE ON SOUR CREAM?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 18/05/2013 12:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
Scotland is still being subsidised to the tune of more than £3,000 per
person. Even if Salmond got his claim to geographical oil revenues,
which he won't, it would be more than £2,000 a head. In addition much of
the 'UK' spending is in things like unemployment and healthcare, which,
as I pointed out, Scotland has a disproportionate need for. Huge's
statement is correct.

You can make up any figures you like. To get an accurate picture you'd
also have to take into account all state controlled spending and see just
where it goes. Just as an example, the recent spending on the Olympics.
How much of that went directly to Scotland? Employed Scottish workers or
companies?

117 Scottish companies won 158 contracts for the Olympics, the two
largest being worth £57 million in total. Around £3 million was
contributed to cultural events in Scotland in connection with the Olympics.

And things like the proposed HS2. Again, billions being spent.
Paid for by all in the country, but of no benefit to the Scots - or Welsh
or Irish.

If the plans are followed through completely, Scotland will get HS2,
just not in the first stage.

In other words, there's a great deal more to it than simple taxation and
direct government spending.

Indeed, but however you work it out, the net result is still that
Scotland receives more than it gives, which would be a problem for a
truly independent Scotland.

Colin Bignell