In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
I wonder if Westminster politicians will have learnt anything from all
this? Which I'd say is that the policies of all recent governments
allowing the gap between the richest and poorest to widen dramatically -
and the gap between the richest and average to widen dramatically too -
isn't actually what the majority of the population benefit from.

Why are you so fixated by this "gap"? I'd have thought that the
absolute wealth level of the poorest is what counts.

Typical Tory thinking. After all the poorest in this country are far
richer than the poorest in Africa. They should be grateful they're not
just allowed to starve. Our food banks are so much better than those in
Africa.

--
*The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist

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

On 15/09/2014 12:34, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
And after the miners strike, never again would Mrs T allow an elected
government (Ted Heath) be brought down by unelected trades unions.

Quite.

But then the Scots dislike being ruled by a government they didn't vote
for either.

But that's democracy. I didn't vote Labour in 1997, 2001 or 2005. It was
Scottish (and Welsh) labour MP's who gave T Bliar and crowd a majority.
And I dislike the effect that Gordon Brown had on my private pension.

Scottish Labour MPS voted to impose tuition fees in England, but had no
say in Scottish education because that is a devolved matter. They didn't
even have the decency to abstain.

In the 2010 election, England voted for a majority Conservative
government, but Scottish Labour MP's gave us a coalition. Not what *I*
voted for. And the electoral boundary bias in favour of Labour MPs is
well documented, notably in .... Scotland. Until that bias is corrected
by the electoral boundaries commission, we will never have 'democracy'
in a general election. Guess who reneged on his 'plegde' to adjust the
boundaries ? ... Yup, Cleggy, who is obviously fishing for a nice
cabinet seat in a Labour/Limp Dem coalition in 2015.

On 15/09/14 12:34, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
And after the miners strike, never again would Mrs T allow an elected
government (Ted Heath) be brought down by unelected trades unions.

Quite.

But then the Scots dislike being ruled by a government they didn't vote
for either.

They are in for a shock either way then.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

In message , Adrian
writes

My theory is that his ideal is a very narrow No. Close enough that he can
use it as a stick to beat his preferred DevoMax out of Westminster, but
still a definite No, so that he doesn't have to actually deal with the
difficult and expensive reality of setting up all the machinery of a
country from scratch.

Interesting comment, and probably perfectly correct. I think it was
always going to be a close vote, and either way, he has already won,
just by bringing the referendum to reality. A Yes vote means he goes
down in history as the man who gave independence to Scotland, and a No
vote means - see above. Agreed, a Yes will be the more difficult result
from which to move forward, but I have little doubt he will do it, one
way or another. I neither like nor support him, but cannot help admire
his tenacity.
--
Graeme

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 11:54:26 +0100, Andrew wrote:

Norway started as a very poor, rural backwater with none of the
overstaffed, worn out relics of the UKs industrial revolution that made
the world what it is today !. They started with a clean sheet of paper,
but in 50 years time they will regret not looking at what has happened
to Luton and Bradford before they embarked on a typically-socialist open
doors immigration policies.

Small detail. The Norwegian government have no say at all over their
national migration policy, since they're a Schengen country.

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 19:51:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Presumably BBC Scotland will become the pravda of the north, and be spun
out and charged to willing taxpayers to broadcast an unending stream of
hatred and vilification of the English, who will be blamed for every
cockup Salmond makes far far longer than he has blamed Margaret Thatcher..

Sadly, I suspect that will be the case.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 12:34:52 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

But then the Scots dislike being ruled by a government they didn't vote
for either.

shrug Who ever promised that any region or other small demographic
slice would get the Gov't they "voted for"?

That's not how democracy works.

You vote for your local MP, who represents you (whether you actually
picked the winner or not). The Gov't is formed by the party or grouping
with a majority of MPs. That simple.

On 15/09/14 14:00, Adrian wrote:
That's not how democracy works.

You vote for your local MP, who represents you (whether you actually
picked the winner or not). The Gov't is formed by the party or grouping
with a majority of MPs. That simple.

That's not how democracy works, either. Just how governments get formed.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:11:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

That's not how democracy works.

You vote for your local MP, who represents you (whether you actually
picked the winner or not). The Gov't is formed by the party or grouping
with a majority of MPs. That simple.

That's not how democracy works, either.

Feel free to expand and explain...

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 15/09/2014 12:34, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
And after the miners strike, never again would Mrs T allow an elected
government (Ted Heath) be brought down by unelected trades unions.

Quite.

But then the Scots dislike being ruled by a government they didn't vote
for either.

But that's democracy. I didn't vote Labour in 1997, 2001 or 2005. It was
Scottish (and Welsh) labour MP's who gave T Bliar and crowd a majority.
And I dislike the effect that Gordon Brown had on my private pension.

And the referendum on independence is democratic too - with likely a far
higher turn out than the usual general election.

--
*I must always remember that I'm unique, just like everyone else. *

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

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 12:34:52 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

But then the Scots dislike being ruled by a government they didn't vote
for either.

shrug Who ever promised that any region or other small demographic
slice would get the Gov't they "voted for"?

But Scotland is a country. Not a region.

That's not how democracy works.

If it consistently seems to work better for some than others, it's hardly
a surprise when they tell you to stick your democracy.

--
*Eschew obfuscation *

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

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:11:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

That's not how democracy works.

You vote for your local MP, who represents you (whether you actually
picked the winner or not). The Gov't is formed by the party or grouping
with a majority of MPs. That simple.

That's not how democracy works, either.

Feel free to expand and explain...

MPs tend to vote how they're told to.

--
*WHY ARE HEMORRHOIDS CALLED "HEMORRHOIDS" INSTEAD OF "ASTEROIDS"?

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

On 14/09/2014 19:11, Lawrence wrote:
Does anyone know what will happen to the BBC if the Scotts leave UK?
Will they have to pay us for BBC Scotland? Will we get a licence rebate?

From the Telegraph this weekend:


Q) "Will my TV licence fee change?"

A) "The Scottish government has said that viewers will still be able to
watch the BBC post-independence, but it is uncertain whether those who
live north of the border will be need to pay more. Some have claimed it
would need to double. The Yes campaign has pledged to keep the licence
fee the same, currently £145.50 a year. New Scottish programmes have
also been promised."

"But digital access is more complicated. This is treated as a different
service by the BBC, at present countries outside Britain have to pay for
access to the iPlayer, known as Global iPlayer. It is available in 11
European countries. Scottish residents could, in theory, be forced to
pay the £44 a year fee to use it. "

*******

Will the Scots will have an identifiable range of IP addresses?

--
Reentrant

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:34:16 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

But then the Scots dislike being ruled by a government they didn't
vote for either.

shrug Who ever promised that any region or other small demographic
slice would get the Gov't they "voted for"?

But Scotland is a country. Not a region.

Next week, Dave, maybe.

That's not how democracy works.

If it consistently seems to work better for some than others, it's
hardly a surprise when they tell you to stick your democracy.

By "work better", do you mean "those with minority opinions don't get
their way all the time"? Hey-ho.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 15:22:55 +0100, Reentrant wrote:

Will the Scots will have an identifiable range of IP addresses?

To the same extent as every other country does, yes. It's not 100%
reliable, but Scotland arranging their own international pipelines (which
may include coming to some kind of a deal for access to the UK's) is one
of the many things which would need to be worked in the event of a Yes.

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:34:16 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

But then the Scots dislike being ruled by a government they didn't
vote for either.

shrug Who ever promised that any region or other small demographic
slice would get the Gov't they "voted for"?

But Scotland is a country. Not a region.

Next week, Dave, maybe.

Ye canna change the laws of Atlas, C'ptain.

That's not how democracy works.

If it consistently seems to work better for some than others, it's
hardly a surprise when they tell you to stick your democracy.

By "work better", do you mean "those with minority opinions don't get
their way all the time"? Hey-ho.

Or more that those who have the power and influence want to keep it that
way?

Scotland is in the fairly unique position of having large natural
resources. But saw much of those being squandered to pay for the
decimation of their industry - rather than the modernisation of it. No
different from vast areas of the rest of the UK in that last respect. With
the emphasis being changed to financial services etc. Rather than
manufacture. And the crows have simply come home to roost.

--
*When a clock is hungry it goes back four seconds*

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

On 15/09/14 15:22, Reentrant wrote:
On 14/09/2014 19:11, Lawrence wrote:
Does anyone know what will happen to the BBC if the Scotts leave UK?
Will they have to pay us for BBC Scotland? Will we get a licence rebate?

From the Telegraph this weekend:


Q) "Will my TV licence fee change?"

A) "The Scottish government has said that viewers will still be able to
watch the BBC post-independence, but it is uncertain whether those who
live north of the border will be need to pay more. Some have claimed it
would need to double. The Yes campaign has pledged to keep the licence
fee the same, currently £145.50 a year. New Scottish programmes have
also been promised."

"But digital access is more complicated. This is treated as a different
service by the BBC, at present countries outside Britain have to pay for
access to the iPlayer, known as Global iPlayer. It is available in 11
European countries. Scottish residents could, in theory, be forced to
pay the £44 a year fee to use it. "

*******

Will the Scots will have an identifiable range of IP addresses?

ye, but not just one


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 15/09/14 14:17, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:11:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

That's not how democracy works.

You vote for your local MP, who represents you (whether you actually
picked the winner or not). The Gov't is formed by the party or grouping
with a majority of MPs. That simple.

That's not how democracy works, either.

Feel free to expand and explain...

Democracy as you understand it, doesn't work.

Democracy, as I understand, it does, and it means little more than if
you can get 52% or sometimes less of the people to support you, you can
have a bloodless coup and be king for 5 years


The rest is just window dressing. Since your parliamentary constituency
has no authority whatsoever, it has no executive powers at all.

At best your voice might be carried to Westminster, but in the absence
of hard cash or a looming election, it will be politely ignored.

And since your MP is under a party Whip, he usually wont stray far off
whatever the party king and his chums tell him. If he wants to keep his
seat.

Real democracy consists in where yu spend your money and how you choose
to live your life.

Which is why the current governments have been ensuring that they take
all your money for 'worthy causes' and tell you exactly how to live.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 15/09/14 15:31, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:34:16 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

But then the Scots dislike being ruled by a government they didn't
vote for either.

shrug Who ever promised that any region or other small demographic
slice would get the Gov't they "voted for"?

But Scotland is a country. Not a region.

Next week, Dave, maybe.

That's not how democracy works.

If it consistently seems to work better for some than others, it's
hardly a surprise when they tell you to stick your democracy.

By "work better", do you mean "those with minority opinions don't get
their way all the time"? Hey-ho.


Actually if they make a fuss, they do get their way all the time.

The silent majority are the ones that are oppressed, and that's why when
you meet em, they are 100% pro UKIP.

Its strange to have strangers wishing you well, cars tooting at you in
the street, and waving and yelling 'stick it to em';' just because you
have a purple rosette ...

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 15/09/14 16:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Scotland is in the fairly unique position of having large natural
resources.

No. it has virtually non at all that are worth extracting.

And its doubtful that without a strong Navy it can control those that it
lays claim to off shore, nor yet whether they would even pay for te Navy
to protect em.


Once it had iron and steel, but it also had scots, and they proved to be
too expensive to pay to mine them, when you could scrape either off the
surface in the USA, China or Australia.

It used to have shipbuilding, but it still had bolshie unionised scots,
so now it doesn't have that either. Shipbuilding is cheaper elsewhere.

Its killed every golden goose it had.

It used to have fishing, till that was given away to the EU. That is the
EU that Scotland wants to join.

Right now the majority of the citizens live in one almost contiguou.s
****heap in and around Glasgow and Edinburgh, where the national sport
is sticking heroin in your veins, because it takes away the sheer
awfulness of being scottish, in scotland.
--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 15/09/14 16:25, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Reentrant wrote:

Will the Scots will have an identifiable range of IP addresses?

No country has an identifiable range of addresses. Addresses are dished
out by regional registries, RIPE in Europe's case. And they are dished
out to any entity that makes a proper case for needing them. And you
can then look up in the RIPE database to determine that such-and-such
an IP address was issued as part of a block, to BT, f'rinstance, or
Virgin Media.

Trouble is that in the early days when 32 bits was thought to be plenty
for an address, whole 24-bit (16 million addresses) long ranges were
issued to the likes of Apple, IBM, HP, you name it. That was before the
registries were properly established. There are plenty of blocks where
no one quite knows who's using them.

Not true if they are ON the internet.

Pretty easy to trace who they end up with.


The registries around the world are now using up their last free blocks
of addresses, and then that will be that for IPv4. We'll all be needing
to move to IPv6 then.

Entities in Scotland will need to apply to RIPE for blocks of addresses
just like anyone else, if there are any, and that will show up in the
RIPE database.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 15/09/14 16:33, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

And since your MP is under a party Whip, he usually wont stray far off
whatever the party king and his chums tell him. If he wants to keep
his seat.

Is why the Tories are moving towards open primaries for Westminster
candidate selection - although that is expensive.


No it isn't.

Once selected he will still be whipped.

Major industrial sponsors aren't going to sponsor a party that cant whip
through a bill that makes profits for them.

And without them, who will pay someone to write the spin that gets them
elected?

The business of government is a machine to remove wealth from
individuals and concentrate it in the pockets of those in government and
those who sponsored them.

If you don't like it, vote UKIP


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
And after the miners strike, never again would Mrs T allow an elected
government (Ted Heath) be brought down by unelected trades unions.

Quite.

But then the Scots dislike being ruled by a government they didn't vote
for either.

How many of the Scots voted for the SNP in their own parliament?
Assuming a yes vote roughly 49% of Scots will have voted against leaving
the Union so they will have the government they didn't vote for.
--
bert

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 15/09/14 16:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Scotland is in the fairly unique position of having large natural
resources.

No. it has virtually non at all that are worth extracting.

And its doubtful that without a strong Navy it can control those that
it lays claim to off shore, nor yet whether they would even pay for te
Navy to protect em.


Once it had iron and steel, but it also had scots, and they proved to
be too expensive to pay to mine them, when you could scrape either off
the surface in the USA, China or Australia.

It used to have shipbuilding, but it still had bolshie unionised scots,
so now it doesn't have that either. Shipbuilding is cheaper elsewhere.

Its killed every golden goose it had.

It used to have fishing, till that was given away to the EU. That is
the EU that Scotland wants to join.

Right now the majority of the citizens live in one almost contiguou.s
****heap in and around Glasgow and Edinburgh, where the national sport
is sticking heroin in your veins, because it takes away the sheer
awfulness of being scottish, in scotland.
Don't forget Ravenscraig and Linwood.
--
bert

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

On 15/09/14 16:33, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

And since your MP is under a party Whip, he usually wont stray far off
whatever the party king and his chums tell him. If he wants to keep
his seat.

Is why the Tories are moving towards open primaries for Westminster
candidate selection - although that is expensive.


No it isn't.

Once selected he will still be whipped.

Major industrial sponsors aren't going to sponsor a party that cant whip
through a bill that makes profits for them.

And without them, who will pay someone to write the spin that gets them
elected?

The business of government is a machine to remove wealth from individuals
and concentrate it in the pockets of those in government and those who
sponsored them.

If you don't like it, vote UKIP

So, exactly how will that change "The business of government ..."?

In message , News
writes
In message , Michael Chare
writes

I do wonder whether they will conclude that full independence is not
worth the cost and the effort when they start making plans.

I tend to think that, in the event of a Yes vote, Salmond will not let
independence fail. Money will be thrown at whatever problems arise for
a good few years, even if doing so means passing mountainous debts to
generations as yet unborn.

This is Wee Eck's big moment. This is his moment to go down in history
as the man who led Scotland to independence. He will not, cannot, let
a Yes vote fail.
Salmond doesn't give as **** about what happens after independence.
He'll get himself appointed President and retire to his new country
residence (AKA Balmoral) and leave others to cope with the shambles he
has created.
--
bert

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

On 15/09/14 15:31, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:34:16 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

But then the Scots dislike being ruled by a government they didn't
vote for either.

shrug Who ever promised that any region or other small demographic
slice would get the Gov't they "voted for"?

But Scotland is a country. Not a region.

Next week, Dave, maybe.

That's not how democracy works.

If it consistently seems to work better for some than others, it's
hardly a surprise when they tell you to stick your democracy.

By "work better", do you mean "those with minority opinions don't get
their way all the time"? Hey-ho.


Actually if they make a fuss, they do get their way all the time.

Absolutely.


The silent majority are the ones that are oppressed, and that's why when
you meet em, they are 100% pro UKIP.

I'm not 100% UKIP, but I am one of the silent majority.


Its strange to have strangers wishing you well, cars tooting at you in the
street, and waving and yelling 'stick it to em';' just because you have a
purple rosette ...

Be really strange to have that in some inner city areas!

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 17:06:16 +0100, bert wrote:

How many of the Scots voted for the SNP in their own parliament?

Last time (2011), roughly 45% of a turnout of 50% - so 22%ish. Two in
every nine.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 16:41:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If you don't like it, vote UKIP

Mmm. Vote for a party that can't even publish a manifesto before the
biggest election of their existence, and who seem to insert a foot firmly
into a mouth every time roughly 3/4 of their elected representatives
utter anything...

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 23:35:22 +0100, bert wrote:

Just going off at a tangent. what will happen to National Savings which
is based in Glasgow?

They aren't. One of their sites is in Glasgow. They're based in London.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 08:40:43 +0100, News
wrote:

This is Wee Eck's big moment. This is his moment to go down in history
as the man who led Scotland to independence. He will not, cannot, let a
Yes vote fail.

He's a dangerous *******, right enough.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 13:44:07 +0100, News
wrote:

I neither like nor support him,

Ditto.

but cannot help admire his tenacity.

Contraywise; I utterly despise the man. He's playing wooly-headed
fools like cheap fiddles, appealing to the mawkish sentimentalism that
resides in many breasts, playing them for all he's worth in his
personal pursuit of power.
He's a very good politician, but one who realised early on in his
political life he had no chance in the shark-infested pool of true
National Government, so decided to create a national platform of his
own that he could strut around on, and blare his hideous propaganda
from.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
And after the miners strike, never again would Mrs T allow an elected
government (Ted Heath) be brought down by unelected trades unions.

Quite.

But then the Scots dislike being ruled by a government they didn't vote
for either.

--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.

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

It was the Scots inflicted Bliar/Brown on the UK resulting in total
destruction of the economy and society.
it's socialism that destroyed Scotland, not the English.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 17:39:11 +0100, harryagain wrote:

It was the Scots inflicted Bliar/Brown on the UK

Umm, Blair represented a constituency in England.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:11:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

That's not how democracy works.

You vote for your local MP, who represents you (whether you actually
picked the winner or not). The Gov't is formed by the party or grouping
with a majority of MPs. That simple.

That's not how democracy works, either.

Feel free to expand and explain...

They have real democracy in Switzerland

In message , Adrian
writes
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 17:39:11 +0100, harryagain wrote:

It was the Scots inflicted Bliar/Brown on the UK

Umm, Blair represented a constituency in England.

But he was born in Edinburgh.
Gordon Brown was born in Giffnock, Renfrewshire,
Both are definitely of the Scottish persuasion.
--
Ian

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 17:59:00 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

It was the Scots inflicted Bliar/Brown on the UK

Umm, Blair represented a constituency in England.

But he was born in Edinburgh.

shrug
Cliff Richard was born in India. Does that make him Indian?

But that's beside the point. Nobody registered to vote in any Scottish
constituency was ever offered an opportunity to vote for or against Tony
Blair in any Parliamentary election. Only people living in part of Co.
Durham ever did that, so they're the only ones who "inflicted" him on the
UK.

In article ,
harryagain wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
And after the miners strike, never again would Mrs T allow an elected
government (Ted Heath) be brought down by unelected trades unions.

Quite.

But then the Scots dislike being ruled by a government they didn't
vote for either.


It was the Scots inflicted Bliar/Brown on the UK resulting in total
destruction of the economy and society.
it's socialism that destroyed Scotland, not the English.

And they thought they were voting for a socialist government which might
just reverse some of the appalling damage Thatcher did to Scottish
industries. Instead they got Blair.

So next time they voted SNP.

--
*(on a baby-size shirt) "Party -- my crib -- two a.m

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

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 17:39:11 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
And after the miners strike, never again would Mrs T allow an elected
government (Ted Heath) be brought down by unelected trades unions.

Quite.

But then the Scots dislike being ruled by a government they didn't vote
for either.

--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.

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

It was the Scots inflicted Bliar/Brown on the UK resulting in total
destruction of the economy and society.
it's socialism that destroyed Scotland, not the English.

It was the English who voted the Labour party in to power.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 14/09/14 22:39, Jabba wrote:
polygonum wrote


On 14/09/2014 22:18, Jabba wrote:
Richard wrote


"Jabba" wrote in message
dhosting.com...

ARW wrote


"Lawrence" wrote in message
et...
Does anyone know what will happen to the BBC if the Scotts leave
UK?
Will
they have to pay us for BBC Scotland? Will we get a licence rebate?


Will the Doctor get deported?


Who ?

Yes.


Dr Who is based in Cardiff, which was in Wales the last time I checked.

Peter Dougan Capaldi (born 14 April 1958) is a Scottish actor and film
director. Wasn't that the reference?


Last I heard he was a resident of Crouch End.


I was one a resident of Crouch End. Probably the worst year of my life.
Nope, I had a worse one later, but that wasn't because of where I lived.

I have nightmares sometimes, that I am an OAP on benefits living in Crouch
end, or Holloway road/archway. And I can't quite bring myself to jump off
the high bridge.


My adopted sister lives in Crouch End but works in Zug. She hates Zug.


--
Adam